HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1985 Council Packet Special MeetingPage 1
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 3, 1985
ATTENDANCE 7:90 PM The Orono City Council met on the above date
with the following members present: Mayor
Butler, Councilmembers Grabek, Tim Adams and
Frahm. Councilmember Lynn Adams was absent.
City Attorney Radio, Public works Coordinator
Gerhardson and City Clerk Hallin represented
the City Staff, City Administrator Benson was
absent.
OATH OP OFFICE City !'lerk Hallin administered the Oath of
Office to 7!avor Mary Butler and Councilmember
James Grabek.
PLANNING COMMISSION
APPOINTMENTS Councilmember Grabek moved, Councilmember Tim
Adams seconded, to reappoint Ed Callahan, and
appoint Paul Taylor and Denny Pederson to the
Planning Commission for three year terms.
After much discussion regarding the policy of
rotation by Planning Commission members
Councilmember Tim Adams withdrew his second to
Councilmember Grabek's motion. All
Councllmembers agreed to remove the motion.
Councilmember Grabek moved, Mayor Butler
seconded to reappoint Ed Callahan to a three
year term and leave the other two positions
open for review by the Council at a future
meeting. Motion, Ayes (4), Bays (9).
Council requested a news item be placed in the
paper stating that the City is looking for
people who are interested in serving on
Commissions.
PARR COMMISSION
APPOINTMENTS
AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION Councilmember Grabek moved, Mayor Butler
seconded, to extend the terms of Virginia
Sweatt and Paul Taylor on the Park Commission
and to extend the terms of Donna Carltin and
Mary Rivers on the Human Rights Commission.
Erch appointment is for a three year term.
Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (S).
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 3, 1985
1985 APPOINTMENTS AND
DESIGNATIONS
RESOLUTION 11717
Councilmember Frahm moved, Mayor Butler
seconded, to appoint Ed Callahan Chairman of
the Planning Commission, and Charles Kelley
Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mayor Butler second alternate to the MCWD -
Paintec's Creek a Katrine/Advisory Committee.
Tom Frahm representative to West Tonka Senior
Citizens. J. Diann Goetten and Barbara
Peterson to remain on the Advisory Committee
Noerenberg County Park. Staff to contact Brad
Van Nest to confirm his interest as the City
representative to the Southwest Sanitary Sewer
District and MCWD - Painter's Creek i
Katrine/Advisory Committee. Motion, Ayes (4),
Nays (0).
RESIGNATION -
JOHN PIELON
Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Adams
seconded, to accept the resignation of Jnhn
Pielow and the payment of $1,208.21 for
accrued vaction pay. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays
(0).
Council requested a policy recommendation from
the Police Chief regarding accrued vacation
for his department.
REQUEST SERVICES OF
MINNESOTA POLICE
RECRUITMENT SERVICE
Mayor Butler moved, Councilmember Frahm
Seconded to secure the services of Minnesota
Police Recruitment Service to recruit a police
officer. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (0).
BILLS
Councilmember Frahm moved, Councilmember
Grabek seconded, that the All Funds Accounts
and Liquor Store Accounts be paid. Motion,
Ayes (4), Nays (0).
ADJOURNMENT 7:42 PM
Councilmember Grabek moved, Mayor Butler
seconded, to adjourn the special Council
meeting at 7:42 p.m. and to enter into
executive session. Motion, Ayes (4). Nays
(0) .
Dorothy M. Hall:n_, ty C ec M C.nB � at, Mayor -�—
COUNCIL MEETING
JAN /9As'
AGENDA FOR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETINNBG PET it FOR THURSOAy, 61yjiARx ,j.oL96`t io
f'i�S�f itNl AA
OATH OF OFFICE
1. Mayor Mary C. Butler
2. Councilmember .lames Grabek
3. Councilmember Lynn Adams
4. Appointments to Planning Commission (3)
S. Appointments to Park Commission (3)
6. Appointments to Human Rights Commission (3)
7. Resolution - 1985 Appointments and Designations
8. Resignation - John Pielew Police Officer
9. Request Services of Minnesota Police Recruitment Service to Hire
Police officer
BILLS (18)
ADJOURNMENT
1
COUNCIL MEETING
JAN - 3 :',/
TO: City Council
CITY OF ORONO
FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Coordinator
DATE: December 27, 1984
SUBJECT: Appointments to Planning, Park and Human Rights
Commissions
The following commission members terms expire or December 31,
1984. They have all indicated that they wish to serve another
term with the exception of Peggy Watson, Park Commission and
Betty Phelan, Human Rights Commission. Both Peggy and Betty have
moved from the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION
J. Dianne Goetten 3 year term 12/31/87
Edward Callahan 3 year term 12/31/87
PARE COMMISSION
Virginia Sweatt 3 year term 12/31/87
Paul Taylor 3 year term 12/31/87
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Donna Carlton 3 year term 12/31/87
Mary Rivers 3 year term 12/31/87
You will notice that the Chairman and Vice Chairman for the
Planning Commission has been left blank on the resolution for
appointments for 1[-5. These appointments should be discussed
and determined at the January 3rd meeting.
Also included is a list of names of people showing an interest in
serving on the Planning Commission. For your information Paul
Taylor is currently on the Park Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANTS
Polly Patch
1099 Tamarack Drive
Long Lake, MN
Paul Taylor
3075 Farview Lane
Long Lake, MN
William Wear
36 Hackberry Hill
Long Lake, MN
Denny Pederson (or Park Commission)
2285 Webber Hills Road
Wayzata, MN
COUNCIL MEETING
City of ORONO AN - 3, ' 9 8s
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIIC1TY OF ORONO
NO.
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING APPOINTMENTS
FOR THE YEAR 1985
PE IT RESOLVED by the City Counci l of the City of Orono, Minnescta, that the
:I.:pointments and designations for the year 1985 are as follows:
APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION
Acting Mayor
Planning Commission Councilmember
Park Commission Chairman
Planning Commission Chairman
Planning Commission Vice -Chairman
Human Rights Chairman
Rep. to Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District
Rep. to Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities
Lead Attorney
City Attorney Firm
Lead Engineer
City Engineering Firm
Health Officer
Auditor
Fiscal Agents
Official Newspaper
Official Depositories
1985
Tom Frahm
Alternate
Barbara Peterson
Sandy Welsh
JoEllen Hurr
Mary Butler
Tom Radio
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich,
Kaufman and Doty
Glenn Cook
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and
Associates
Mound Medical Clinic
Pannell, Kerr, Forster (formerly
Anfinson, Hendrickson s Co.)
Ehlers i Associates
Westonka Sailor and The Laker
First National Banks of:
The Lake (Navarre)
Wayzata
Minnetonka
Minneapolis
Saint Paul
Wayzata Bank c Trust Company
Merrill,Lynch, Pierce, Fanner
and Smith, Inc.
F a M/Marquette National Bank
American National Bank i Trust
Company of St. Paul
Midland National Bank of
Minneapolis
National City Bank of
Minneapolis
Norwast Bank Minneapolis
Twin City Federal Savings a Less
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY NO. _.
APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION 1985
Official Depositories Continued
Weed Inspector
Assistant Weed Inspector
Transportation Committee
Civil Defense Director
Marina License Inspection Committee
Hennepin Emergency Communication
Organization
West Hennepin Human Services Planning
Board
Special Prosecutor
Southwest Sanitary Sewer District
Suburban Health Nursing Service
MWCC - Area C - Sewer Service Advisory
Board
MCWD - Painter's Creek b Katrine/
Advisory committee - Alternate (2)
Cable TV Committee (2 plus Alternate)
(Alternate)
Mayor's Association
Suburban Rate Authority - Alternate (2)
Advisory Committee Noerenberg County
Park (2)
Offerman b Company, Inc.
Bank of America, San Francisco,
California
Piper, Jaffray 6 Hopwood,
Wayzata
Dain Bosworth, Inc., Minneapolis
Mary Butler
John R. Gerhardson
Tim Adams
Melvin Kiibo
Tom Frahm and
James Grabek
Melvin Kilbo
Jean Kottemann
Gary Larson
Brad Van Nest
Mary Butler
Mary Butler
Brad Van Nest
Tim Adams
Tom Frahm
Tim Adams
Mary Butler
Mary Butler
Mary Butler
John R. Gerhardson
J. Diann Goetten
Barbara Peterson
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a special
meeting held January 3, 1985.
Mary C, sutler, Mayor
ATTEST:
Inter -office memo No. 84-181
COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: December 21, 1984 JAN -3 /9�S
TO: Mavor Butler, Citv Council, Finance Department
FROM: Mel Rilbo, Chief of Police CITY OF O R ON O
SUBJECT: Resiqnation - Final Pav, Officer John Pielow
Effective January 6, 1985, Officer John Pielow has resigned to
accept a position with the Minneapolis Police Department. His
last day of work will be 12-31-84.
John has 90.7 hours of vacation accrual pav due him. John has
no comp time due him. He is not eliqible for anv sick, leave ac-
crual pay, therefore, the total pav due John in addition to reg-
ular payroll on the 9th is $1208.21 for vacation accrued at his
rate of hourly pay of $13.321
VILLAGE OF ORONO, -!Ii!NESOTA
STATENEUT OF RESIGNATION
NAME OF EiPLOYEE POSITION TITLE
C cat
Department ,Salary Rate Full Time_,_
(Part
Statement of Resignation:
I request that this resignation be accepted by the Village Council to
become effective on -5 v\ cti v `I wiIich is the las-
day of actual service. am requesting compensation for personal service
to the Village in the above indicated position for accrued annual leave 41,
for days. The reason for this resignation is as follows:
,1 wice iQt M c�� �c' T�� - kTN •'IN.� 7O _
Date: 11b1 �k`I
(Employee's Signature)
Recommendation of Department Ilead:
I would ( ) would not ( x) re -hire this employee.
Tais position may not be refilled until 7AfV'Ar-1 1- /9d'S-
Date: IZ(z,�i/ httL
epartmen ea
Certification of Accrued Leave:
Payment for O days accrued leave upon employee's termination on_
is hereby authorized.
Data:
age suns ra or
COUNCIL MEETING
JAN - 3, ,Ps
INTEROFFICE MEMO 84-I8-'
Cll Y OF ORONO
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 1984
TO: MAYOR MARY BUTLER, CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHIEF MELVIN KILBO
SUBJECT: PERMISSION TO HIRE POLICE OFFICER
UPON RESIGNATION OF OFFICER JOHN PIELOW, WHICH BECOMES EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 6, 1985, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS AN OPEN POSITION. I
REQUEST PERMISSION TO HIRE A POLICE OFFICER TO REPLACE OFFICER
PIELOW. THE DEPARTMENT WILL USE THE SERVICES OF THE MINNESOTA
POLICE RECRUITMENT SERVICES OF WHICH WE ARE A MEMBER.
COUNCIL MEETIN%.,
ORONO
1�
+vi¢enn Eup 116 �e4
I. .
.I.
•J
i
.. r4
.Ri•?:
op I
'-
J]
1-
7:)i>..4
•cry .�
..
•L
t•
.15
TN:
.
fi.c
01)4
pj
CTT .0 i%J'IJ 0 4
EM PL-t4 IMr
1I9
GROSS
MOSS ER"A
SMITH
J7
92
25397.1F
1129 •SS
ST:f FENKA)
0£
93
24?23.60
926.70
STC9ENS
M_9!
1094010
9)]_,__
oJT'JN
�E
12
111lf0Js
420.]D
74"tZTR
MV
11
2964C.47
1799.SA
C JJ NT G449)
33•A9i.60
CA: 11 4, i.4G
TOTAL 0':"S• TJT+L
TOT:L FI:= T:N Gd0+5 • 1a�11 S.02 _ EM�LUTENS
_. .A + GR5U° HALT 9__.
9 + PJiTS:C:444S NEALTN PLAN
C + SLUE C^. ii/3:JE SN:ELO
,'J_+ MEJ iC-L C:NTE4._?LAV
+ PRUDE NT:AL
P = C00+0• i£ALTN con
N = TA4N3-A1£RI:A M.C•
2 SA hN E:S LIs_
< s NUTUAL IF 74141
. _. L • ENPL)TE£+S 4E)EFIT
�•• N * NICOLLET EITE-
--- 0 • LEAGUE OF :ITTES - --
NISSINO NCS*o COTE FOR SONG EN+LIS
'
:1
<9
1900 MY OT 1414010
•. IINT
77N4 E1-! I1R//N[}'<�/'•
0J11............ Sx� •
SSP 009 IZ/21/64
]1001A 12/21/94
)fNsf 12/21/94
1
CNECS AEOISTEO 12-26-14 Ph" / :1
9SNOf1 ^-'fOWF-IIO.-FNr+f.f.-F/[f02s!-�; 1
L9.9i LGO•R NNCf 071 tR OFF SUPPLIES 01-{z10-019-I1 •
•O.Of fus•rtrll[us.-1!L_---MSUHLKm—V-1-arlao[f-1{ —1-1
12.1f ACOO-OINNESOT[ INC Of, SUPPLIES 01-{210-0N•IS I.I
`/.91 ACOO•NIrNESOfA INC OFF SUPPLIES 01-4210-12Y-71 •
34.tf ACrOM[NL•SOTA�--OY/LSUPPUU -
16.14 0C00•N9NMi10TA INC UPP SUPPLIES 9/N210-2{9-{2
MM
35900/
12/21104
212.45
OLMr f[NYICL OR IN
rfI KW/MOf
►1-4345•5I9•90
212.{1 •
•
u.o•
••r CN1
•:
lSflll_tfl2t
.lA
22O.IS- .. ___—.ALL-
ATM-ILL•CINt1
INIT-LOMON00-------f1-f-
ii9.rY
1M0/9
11/11/M
21.71,
ANENICAN L2NEN
MT ROMMOS
rt-4347^111-90
..... •
• • n CIA
719f11
11l0O
1.71
At L 1' 1N1STSTEN
TEIC►S1N1
T2-4f20-149.91
�
JNf 70
111Ifl1//OO
1.49
LT L I I4+1 JT 1TLr
T[L[/NM[
/1-4320•569-92
•
••-ENS
_"I
J1OQI
iWn of
196.00
avall SCT"T:P1C IN
EQUIP PTS ACCESS
73•421z-S69.921483
.
`
.. •—c9s
•Ww_.__tf/flfls
—_--J7.J0.
9LAc1OAIAI L 101S
NMI 900IGAYS
71-4343*11S•90
70.90
—MI•e•
•• •-CN9
•'.1
S9Nf0
Ifill /1O
617.73
9.001LIN .I14TI9S
PNTGIPWL
21-{122-RP 31
•••-ENS
L
Jlf290
11/17/114
H011
9U.NISTE.y14T01
CONP/S[N00LS
01-4151-129-I1
��1
1!'�90M
11/11/N
tit. 0
9UTC.f1 94A SUPPLY
NIN -UACN
PI-4 920-51S-90
•
1J9EE7---
Etli✓sL------
c.EUICX-GA.Y
CONr/1C.00LS
01_{156-1za11
•+4-
e.ie
1f._
n....
.—Cal
.4
E -.34 fill 9/ am CHECK REGIOTC4
�.J -, a11_ rCv Rrr.a1 ane. _. 11,
,I:
j-h
12-24-a4 PASS 2 t
L
lA_12/21/!fA 4f.14.CLYTIILY-RRs1.NTt_.—R4I 9L*L/qOL---0bU43.129-.{. ''L'
4804 .
' I•I ffr12�L u/il ni
1'1
COCA COLA 9CR0141 - RTA PJRCI - - -- +1.44_'^-515.90
sa.Ral
1u1rP4
19.1•.
COLSU\L LIPS IR CO
4CALl0 IR
01.41St.126.34
I"
3NIH
12/21J1A
H.00
Cgg1\L LC►C Ipi CO
W AT IR
at.4151.129.31
L'
Ss9131
13/21/94
5N•10
r.O"!4CtA. 0LOS R4I
JNITORIAL SEAT
9t-4349-099-1/
motto
12121194
_.._-M.13---_
CMICRDIAL 0400_ap__
A%1TOA11L Sall01.49M•libll--.----
N1.33
•�
;,
rNPu_—.
H014!
f2RIN4
29.40
Co., )UP>4 INC:
Jf9 SUPPLIES
01-4210-039-12
I55.93 ..
C3a1 Dl> M 1IC
3T/ SUPPLIES
01-4210-129.31
IN•!3
li/211.4
111H3.77
C1mx:S1IJI7R TR14S
TER' f10PLITE CRS-12
11-4399-249-42
��HHN
•19lNga .
_ -
` A4f•u
•- 3H/S0--�_WWII,
_---
- 14.40
CJLL16CN
MY SLDS/qOt
01.4343•.079•Ir
"of SO
12/2//N
19.82
CULLIGLI
uTIL[II[S
)t.4314-113.90
w'
0.40
•
NRN•
)"ISS
OR1/N
NA.)I
*AT ort"ICUTIt\ C)
t[4 PMOR
r/NHi. f1Y90
"I 3H•tbs
12/21/N
24.90•
OAT 3:3TRr10TIIs Ca
SOt off
11-L71R-sis.ro
y—.lN7U_l2@S/A-_.--
S.rS
OAS OIira I3uT14• CO---PI1
►Y1Cu .. - _
71-4410•51S."
644.93
` 3HITr
li/21//4
$6.93
*)LOCI •LRR 4 ITS
An SLOG/MOS
31.4343.09A17
Hal1a full/Ag—.-_
..4.13__
- SOUEA -LIES \ 476 -
101I0,/Ira/aCCEss
33.4232"40-92.
•I lH/ar—t!/2/IN
1.Tr1.4s
East $931 MENAGE
W14 PUNCH
r1-48IUM-90
Ji/I4M-__
__ 32•ro.____
..CAST 1139. SC9ERAGE
NOT NET - -
r1-4.15.31E-1011 _
. W
Soler
12/N/p
ab00
CAST SWC s[OCRASC
Pt PUNCH
T.4120fl .s-N
ti^
1.123.15
• -L[S
••«C•9
r
MA c[rr er eeaa
1-•.,N� -
Wl
• JSR)7 12 /t1 /04
1
CHECK AMSTER
EAtCNSORf Rl Rt
3S9i31
12/21A4 - - _
- _ Is.43
FL[MAL3 RATER
CAA9
16.40 .
550212
12/21/44
13.38
FLEXIBLE PIFC
IN,
331232
12/21/84
92.1E
FLEXIBLE N1K
TOOL
0244-86 ►AO[ 3 ra-
e-9.0.-0-\O\AOO---. 1!
GEARS, RO ADD 01-4221-129-31 : •
...CR3 •
YIILtfICf--_--74-t 12MS90.93 -� - _ -
T Gi R•sG9.9S
►3Nili•f\9.92
A0.1'0
...•..
•.•-CAS
3f987
12/2//64
7.10
GOLDEN PALLET CC
COFOWMORO
DI.1NhI2fd1
7.33
55954
12121/84
14S.30
SEWAAL AEPAIA S9
E4YEFf9fs/KCOBO
_
73.4232.919.92-
.Rf
145.10 .
12/21/24. -_
- 91.2f
GLE44030 IVUCNWO
YILITICS
31.4121-399-ti
SS.2S
•,"
1992\4
12/21/e4
141.13
G.IOGS SICK 0131
DEEP OUR CM
71-441S-513.90
_..y9LD_-
12/21/R4
2.40•
GSIG;S SLCR GIST
SOT ACT
71-4 dtG. S1 S•90
Hf.l1
•�''�
,
•
319271
12/21144
62.15
MCC CTt R:ALTIt CARE
NEALTM INS
01.4151-049-1S
319217
12/11/04
62.1%
RED CTR NCALl- Cut
DEALT" [AS
01-4t51.129.11
JSP211
It/21/44
101.23
RED :TI MCILTN cut
M!\LTM 141
Ot- N 51• Al-5f
•
JS92/1
1Z/21/94
963.99
Mr0 CTI NE\LTM CARE
RCALT+ INS
01.t151-74♦-at
339271.
12/2/194-._. ._.
.. 46.46 --
MCD CIA MILLER CAME
NCALT+ IRS
IZ-4151-Sa4.91
'
319P/
lI"lf04
Ldt
NrO :TR NELLTM CARE
MCALTM INS
?1 WI•S49-11
•
497.94
......
••r[Ff
•
3SRe2 .-
12/43144_ --.
_.. 7.28 - -
94I19N4C4RGL -
+ILUG(
01-4501-1Z9-11
).22
•
$stiff
11/21/64
SS.23
"Ca -cm :41Ers AM
CONFISCROOLS
Ot-4334-140.31
•-'
......
....M
r.. 1904 CITY of Me11/ CHICK RCSSSTIR
"•'-_ - _.-_ ------ ------ ---------------
12-24-94 pass 4 11
♦+.e.-R-wfart—r��
, l lea
.1L.AL—_p(tl_CLS_31[llt[_Ort--.316
{0-SCRT4,
OI�l3)0-/2s-1/
-'
.I
51
,Yll
IZIM 4
2R1/41
[f2.42
MUMS CTV 14TRiq OMr
J4IL CMOIS
01-435■-ON-16
•
11 I2f.0f
b1ffl _12111 LOS
•1T.fl
IamISIRS s !Tpr---.
101r/rTS/atcgt--.C1N27t44f.4L—
14r.S0 .
P
;i
/Sell!
12/tl A4
119.31
JOPIf WellssIPTti1
[W IrnT V4CCG/
MN272.1I9.7/
199.
OF
IIN7f1
17/11/14
114.21
JOMMf OY rSKR CO
STUB[ SUPPLIES
rt.4210-flf•f0
IH.tI
_I
V21/86--...
60.34
L-.301 CL1T131S 4SS1
14 RR4RIT4aTT04
01-4304-12931
61.30 .
I
' Ar4Jr
11111164
111.1 1
L11EV 10 _1 Yrl x1•.
egt6/vUB
]�-Ut2-]ff•11
'
111. r3
-aa
1ff41S ----11/tl//4
31.10
Lr351C sY 11N14 41:
1[RDE43M1.
01-1340.190-21
'
3s 04 .
. �. ...... ------
-
.. «us
D9411 _ _
11/11/64 -
219.2r
L3G13
4IMIM SERIICI-ROW
01-4152-469-I5
� ifuf
Ia/11/s4
T2•S1
L1615
L3YM:•0h0P.NOY
^1-1/S1-JaV-1S
L
311411
11 I•
1011.24
L1613
l41• aROC-MSr
)t.t ISS-)H-If
is*uL_...Ia,
53.6
Li.13
SOfIIM SERVICE-40Y
rt-4352-SIS-9I
' 110471
is,
1r.4l
LIGIS
OAT4 vr0c-40r
rt-4155-140-H
119411
T1 .64
r1.33
L I G I S
404I1 SERVICE-409
73-4332-169•9?
II961/____1a0of/s4
21,21
L)GII
ORS .M]c-mv
I1-411f-f4••12
1 .43.40
• UPS"
11/11/04
13.29
Llur— life MIe T"{
rv:•I.1/4ocrsl
a••.2 st•Ran
'
JH461
IC/71/14
163.11
L1111 LUM1:4
sUWe401 SW
01-4231.309-17
t` f44 t
11/alf"
r11a
LI-41 LUM4_4
.t MT SUPPLIES
01-421 S•Z. V-42
'
1'.
i
C� 1924 CAST or Tar
LI larn
.ICI •••••
CrICR 09613TER
12.26-66 PArc 1
••«efs
S 2/zltll
+.AL.SI
cut ' •�L[JILA2N
liN-{r4/rtFiurtcG-01.47 N-/si-fz —
IM1/64
S. lf-
it" IF MILE PLAIN
Iraure
cr
01-L316-1-fA
u
2,455.81 .
IM1144
IA�SALES
—"I
12/21/p
12.00•
NAM VIAf6L[f
act
trot APA
H-6N1-IIf-M
12/21/rA
11.C1
MA11R rtI ULLt
VIA
Ilse rwp
it-6{I{•9If-rt
,
.... us
ANNNI
R/2//N
6H•r6
104411111 NauNN[ 66
AUTO NNI
01.6341.12r•11
614.74 .
•-CRS
—ANNUAL--- -
12/21/1a __...
_ 149.00
HILL?. OATII CO
PSI G/PU6L
01-6522-040-13
1 M.00
-
•-CRS
115r68S
I2/21/16
26.10
WE$ 0916:4 CO
ST RAT SUP
01-.213-241-6i
„
•-CRf
36""
1AM 144
T. )1
HN 1E4EF:f ASSN
HEALTH INS
01.4151-126-01
7.11
• CIS
' lo1r0
It/t1/N _ -
211.2s
at" OOAN
TELEPHONE
OI-a )i0-t1f.II
1114IM
12/11/66
IS.S)
NINN CORN
IELCPHOIE
CI-1120-14-S5
III.H
-CR!
NUN PIKE INC
AR RAC EWV
01-6 Ai•lil.Sl
U.ON
solar
18/II/111
40.00
IN KINA Pis 661,911?
w awua
m-a2lo-Izr.f1
46.60 ..____.
_.._.._._ ._
..._.._.._
-,A »..••
....CAS
i ANgH
/tR/n6
68.I0
C[ff N NIN{[n lffa
Mtt On1 CM
01-65 vt.l av-al
N•0(
I .
,*.-L.•
•[Rost
Ls
aD.-ter.-a+.��{-N[
'
ITa
_
Am'
I,
m.e...o�r.
•
359519
12/21/N
ISS.OD
NTAA RVFPIB/AC
NOT RISC [MIO
71.4342.113.w
uu••
..rcn
•
___
'
3395I5
12121154
33/.0!
MM1R[ REPAIR
of AUTO
O1-4341-17M 33
1212V96
9.f9
:if:
%AYHNC ut RMIT
MIT 4910
Y2.4341-94"I
H_{S_12223A•
9.A99_
NAVAAIIL WTO SE►9!R
ROL.AYw ___.._#-4341-SW92
A9SCS
12/n/S4
9.N
NAYAtlE AUTO REPAIR
POT AUTO
SSI110
12/21/94
12.09
NAVHAC AUTO REPAIR
OR AUTO
73.4341-L9.it
3191Tf
12C21194
_ 12.39 _
NAVLIRE Aura REPAB..--11M-AUf0
--73.4341.560.93--
''
MS4S
IZ/21/B4
12.99E
VAYIItE AUTO REPAIR
ONT AUTO
73-434I-SA0-93
•'
A91As
17/21/A4
117.13
NI9NAE AUTO RENIR
NOT AUTO
744341-S90-95
48
..r COs
3fiiN
R/zl/44
11S.M
NAYAW M ROVARC
900OROS NNT
91-a239-099-11
•
JS9 4
12IZIN4
31.59
NAVARRE HIt OWART
BLDG/GRSS 041
O+d z31-2w-Al
33YS45
12/Z1/54
123.50 -
NAVARRE HLROWAR[
PTIEAYIP/ACCESS
Ot.4232-129-31 -
$59142
12/11/46
6.12
NAV4RRE M14OWRC
PT9EIUIPACCCSs
0+-4232-174.33
•
......
12121/44
ALAS
RAWAARC N94ONNC
PTIEAUIR/ACCESS
01-4232.Z69-42
Is 95Y/
12121/64
2.39 -
NAVARRE MARawNC
Rt DGIGRDS ANT
71-4231-515-90
IS7$,A
12/21/84
5.41
VATAARE HARDWARE
PTS EQUIP ACCESS
R-123L
f4MM
35519
1212111,
24.4
M "ARE 41.OWARE.
PTS --QUIP ACCESS
15-4232-549-92
377.91.
-
......
.••-ENS
•
15v519
21
1i1/S4
42PJA
%1A
Sr LITCSS
01.N2-49-42
1S9IS
Z.21
rlLTIC
11 AIs-w
3SV1
5
/1
2H
nUs9a7 -
1?/11184
22
MR
utIS
LRi
U031YSS9
1-M975.21E
-
$51559
12/21/94
144.70
NSA
UTILITIES
73-432h SA9-92
1.212.03
rCM
AI370
cmim
66.39
NSAf WCSTEAN OCLL
TELEPMV[
31-4120-039•t2
-
310S70
12/21/64
.94
1101114A[ST[l■ SELL
TELEPHONE
01-4320-040-13
JSVS70
121,1184
66.35
NaTMACST:41 SELL
TCLEPHONE
01-4320-359-14
I5i5r0
12121/84
33.41
L'MMVEsf CIN O!.L
TELEPHONE
01.4320.�'.l5
I09S72
12121/44
rz•..A9
N3Af44CSTEiN SELL
TELEPHONE
91-11t0-129. 31
-
Asp Stu -__.
12/21124_-._._._
67.66--_
NaTHW[STIAN SELL
TELEPHONE
O1-4120-,74-11
3SVs70
12121/84
PA. ?A
MaMWITCIN SELL
f•.LEPMONC
p1.. 320. 1 I5. 34
•
3S#S70
12/21/94
A7s93
Waf WCSTERN SILL
rzLEPNONE
01.4320-249-42
339770..
1Z/n/SA -. -
19.30 ".
NORMV[OTEAN OELL
T[LEPMNE
01-4520-240-4Z
159s70
12121IS4
98.46
Naf4VEST.q BELL
TELEPHONE
71.4123-515.00
11ISr0
1!/21 I84
11.13
NNNVASf EIN BELL
ADVERTISING
)1-4111•S1 S.Op
3393f0-_
12121/44 -_
__. 22.57 _ _.
■af W[sf ETN SE.:
TELEPHONE
72-1120-519.11
37SS70
12r21/14
14.03
%9RT44[sfPR BALL
TELEPHONE
R-4120-549.91
AN,
A0570
11121,44
2T,59
NORM Wf7CRO SELL
TELEPHONE
71-U23-SN•R
• f�-+ 5 ..�-S� .t'15l1C�. • -i ..r . Thar [l., i ri .io0
"IS city- OF OEM CRECR REGISTER 12.26-86 FARE `r G
C" ,
•
,309 .
9tfN
or it/21/fl
121232/•
H/tl/EG
'6r/`, 1Ra2 `?`
-Lit... 96 ••
b•13
0011TROESTERR SELL
RO9YYEGTER• KL
R•NbYCSTCq PILLL
TELE►RMC
T[LERIS
ADVERTISING
73-43211-56"1
-•320-90-03
1ML723.)00-f)
'
��
eta.0 .
•
�
•AR&
112.3-
OFFiec-pas) OI-M----.
OF._SIPPLEGF----
of"al0-O31-/3
--
39374
12121/64
117.37-
oFFI:E PROD or A
OFF SUPPLIES
01-4210-051-12
79SN
12021/64
117.10
GFFI:E PROD OF YM
OFF SUPPLIES
01-a210-Of9-12
•
9114
12Rf/la
39.50---oFRla-PMO
oP-m--- --OFF
[WI►
01"S40-2119-1`2-
1/f .SS
•'�
SSOS1/
IZO21194
216.a7
A•RA,
PER& firs
to
1z/1f
01-4141.039-12
• II,
=-JSI 9L__-.
12111/04
.--- S.a3 ___ -
IPA _.
P[R.l 17/3
TO
12/16
Ol"I 41-040-13
399r
12/21n4
1.60
PERA
PERK 1111
TO
12116
01-4141-OSO-14
•
MOST
12121A4
121.71
PEM
PEER 1213
To
I2A6
of-alat-b0-15
•
-. 39fet.._
12121/e4_
- 13.1?
PEY
KRA t203
TO
12116
01-41.1-01b17
SS9501
12121/44
1.111 .61
PERA
PERM 1213
TO
12116
01-NN.111-31
• '
JSIfO/
12121066
31.60
-CA&
PEER Izn
TO
11016
01-alai-11S.31
•
-
15*697-.__
f2111104
_ 2To.21
PERA
PERA 1211
To
12116
Ot-4f41-121-31
179197
111Zv64
301.40
PERA
PERA Izn
TO
12116
01-4I.1-126-31
•
)ltsor
1Z721 to
19•41
PER&
PERA firs
TO
11/16
01-4141-IF4-33
•
- 39101
111.11$4
2.11 -
Pro& -
PERA 1205
To
falls
01-a/41-14.I5
AtSt7
IMIraa
101.33
PERA
PERA 1213
To
12116
01-4141-24I.42
•
bM 9/
IZ121104
32.9
PFM
P{RA 11/2
we
12116
31-4141-290.61
•
J93Y/-
12121/b
-- - 165.10 ._.
PER&
PERM 12F5
TO
Iz/t&
11-414t-5I5-10
31r11tr
tz/21/64
16.56
PERA
PERA R/J
TO
12/16
/2-4141-54"1
•
)5/39r
tt/zl/b
20P.31
PERA
KRA Ia/3
TO
tz/16
i3-alai-Slt-02
•
llrsir
12/11F84
- 41.81
FER%
PERA 1213
TO
12114
7h4141-S00.01
3, 177.I3
•� AI•U Ix/z1A1 U.So K&It0•/ffrt[R
)9w2 unvb 1ay.xs r[usowsrCr2R
t b.H
•
.uu
G
1SL11
12/21/N
Hz.N
•-
-is"II
IIon lot -_ -
24.30
•,
"0613
12/21/94
31.30
559615
12121/e4 ..
_ 6.71
'
339613
12121/84
8.23
• "i
1a.30
- 39.1s---
wan•----
- - 2?.•0
6E•Rt" IPP
CORFISCYOOLf
PC -St :2L%F7JP oTLG R:A PYRCR
PENIS fRJCR REPAIR
PERMIT TRJCY REPAIR
PERRIS Ilia AE-& V
PERRIS TRICK REPA3i
PTCLOY
RRT AUTO E•IIP
we RIK [wiP
COUP/PTSIACCESS
CGUP/PTS/ACCESS
RILE&GE
01-4221-129-31
01-43SO-12h 11
71-4820-sls."
07-434/-249-42
01-4342-149-42
!2-az la-Sat-I1
13-a2 R-T•b to
01-414t.129-51
Me Carr or aa0 CHECK RESISTER 12.26-8e PAGE
3Billy LEFJUA1 .f0.09 PMIA. EICf_ORi OFF SUPPLIES _-___ 01-1ZIG-1Z9-st
33961F 12/21/84 IY.s{ PRO13 FACTORY Orr SUPPLIES 01-e210-ve-13
11961F 13/21/M 3.33 #"If FACEOAT OFF SUPPLIES 71.42t0-S90.03
uu..
12121/O4
12121166
1.69Z.50 Poulos DIST -- ----SEEMS" n.AG1 Y71Y9{
111. SS- PONEo0 0IST no set 71-46ts-Stale
• CNs
1.sl0.es _• —_
LJ
......
..CBS
12/21/M
e1.11
PRECISION out SM
OFF SUPPLIES
OIN210-039-13
Stools
' nOaa
12/n/N
61.11
q[CI7[a e0f f1f
3n sun
UCS
01-L210-+24-33
350a7 _
Ialit /{A
25S.15
Six list
Co
INC
BEEN
PURCN
71-H15-SiS-W
3119002
11121/8e
14.43.
MEN GIST
:0
INC
BIT SST
71.441e-sls.90
16.•S
......
•••. CRS
n9OM ---
12121184 --
120J0
SATELLITE I000 INC
EMIR
RENTAL
01.4331-790-61
-
..
123.10
- ......
.... CA,
. 310/lt -..
I1/21/81
Ae.el .—.-{1-p[Y
is
COO Fe
FICA
1!/J TO
12116
01-/111-339.12
399/12
I2/21/I1
9.SS
or faces
33
CO1 Fo
FICA
1203 TO
12/9s
01-4//2-040-13
- 159712
12/21/1,
4.20
AT 143W
13
CON FO
FICA
if/$ To
falls
01-4942-359•14
JUI12
I:/21/31
16l.59
at fits$
Is
:21 00
FICA
1215 TO
17/is
01-A1Q•0s9-1S
1512t2
121?1/11
21.19
If firm
$a
CON to
FICA
l2/3 TO
12116
01-4142-091617
_
ls./12
11/21/11
a.SF
It Was
II
.31 FO
F[:A
t2/S TO
toll$
01-4142-11$-31
139112
12/21/94
261.$f._- --
St.fi[OS
SS
CON FO
FICA
1215 To
falls
01-414l-114-33
ISF/12
li/21 /R1
7.01
3T HTea
$3
Ca FO
FICA
Ia/J To
12216
01-lOQ-IOS-3S
1s7111
12221/Bl
1SI.SS
$f 'IEAG
33
:04 F3
FI:A
It/$ TO
Tills
01-/1/2-249-62
' SSr/lA
11/2t/al
S4.1s
of firm
33
CON FO
FI:A
12/3 To
12/13
01-4142-290.11
1"112
12/21/81
91.11
ST Ti[JS
1S
CON t0
FICA
1t/3 To
12/U
71-1162-S11-90
- lsF/I1
I2/21/81
3e.34
at fi-93
is
C0N -0
FICA
1213 TO
12/16
F2-e1A2-S19-M
169.42 _.__.
of FIE&.
Is
COS FO -
FICA
/i/J TO
$a/is
/3-Allx-fsb9l
JM7fa
12/11,84
72.19
ST IRFA$
SS
Ca FO
FICA
1201 TO
falls
7/-1142-S.0-91
•.
1.3".03 .
- ..
....Cgs
_IZA AS& _ _
--_- s0.I3. _
SPRING FAIR
CAN NAYS
"to
NMI
-
01-4341-174-SS
Y
10.03
N
r
1114 COTE OF OMNO
CMICR MINISTER
12-1"4
PAM T
CMLC+ +•
^••'
•'NYRL
'4110e•
IILR-OSNCRlPi1W
KOOWF-Nr1MOrH.�rttlESIASE-
�;.
3O1A6—I,I21I-1•
'«.S
a ITKlc4cR. SWR
PTAAONL-1W/P
-
.
I220.Se
�'1—......
--
•• --Ixs -
-
-----
—-------
♦ '
33/132
11/21/24
411.14
WNReAR TIRE Inc
EOIP/PTSIACCESS
01-4232-249-42
'-JSfill
t2/21/J4_
_732.S6--SNU4§4
fI4E-LIZ--
Ctl IP/Pt SIAC"21--
--24.4237-sto.93---.-_ - --
-
H4.13
3S9f T4
12/21/44
1.731.3f
TNN4 OTSI CO
N21 PN00
71.J1l-f/3.N
`
- 730176—lzltt/Sa
_---_---JJ2--AMMK.Itff-08—
- _NT4K1
11.411MS/3.N—
'-
1.73f.37
-
....CAS
•
311r7/T
12/21/O4
2.232.11
TRACI OIL 0s
141181.916
01-1240-000-00
`
- 12/21/64 --
- ON." - -
TRACI OIL co
YTILITICS - - ---
- Ot•4220-24M2 -
310/TM
12/21/e4
l7.41
TRACI OIL -4
VfgLITKS
01-4-240.93
•
799/H
12191084
H 7.41
iiAC! 71L 00
Y7ll[fltR
UVI
zz-a324l2t-No.O7
•
1t.13
tOM IT3NC -1111
Allc PUCK
11-4122-111•90
:.....
-------
-
....as
I"lll—._-.
U/21/14
1.$S
LIRAS SUPC4 NALU
UTIL SIS "I SUP
lz-a2R-SN-P1
BTFTS
12/21/64
3.11
TT44% SUPC4 IALU
UTIL SIS PAT Sur
I.-ai34-seT-I2
7/NN
I2/q/N
2.143.31
UNIF34MB UNLIMITED
YEARIVN 4«
01-4211-Izv-31
�
2.H1. •0 .
D/qf .__
1i/21/04--
zI, JS
W1MI Y1 LtTCS INC
!OIW RENTAL
0t-4S31.2t7-a2
1
`
v
JHIS2
12F11/14
I.N4.)A
014 4:41LI44
)TPER COMP
01-aSK-pt•7I
•
I.C/4.91
•
ww••
•.•.C13
7HTIL
I2R1/14
),1)
r.VC 132CA :TI
COJis/IS/1CC!3
11-1212-249•41
•
1.33
lMT21
_ .__.—
a/n/14
134.13
l]REY Y)MYi♦
OHCI CONSULT
Ol •a SJ 6-i7Ms7
191/ CITY N "as ..
C4CC9 RESISTED
12.2M94 1ASI 10
_311f)f
v♦ff/u
1A011.00__-._
RAREVIEWVIIEEYW ---.
-911400--)711 - _
011-
0011--{3350
992
/DL
.090.00
99AUC!2 04Ir
I■/tOo
no
359932
IWI/N
1, N0.00-
9RYC! LA71:(
At0 RO D[tI[Y
01.L707-pF71
3799J3
12/21/94
120.00
DART LN331 N
LEGAL CONSOLE
01-4303.NS&N
359914
12/21/94
275.30
RISC CISIAOL
OTOCe CON9RT
01-4106-039-12
M
2rs.00_R
311911
12181/14
193.73
Ron ROOT[%
NOT LIKS S LS
21-43".9N.92
3/0019
t[/1//84
43.33
STp[N IN:[
Mee IN
61.23118.008me0
-
311101
11/11/fA
25.1
ICAO/ 4L4D3
NWq tU[LS/LNSCD
91-4220-129.31
23.10 -
"
119901
111"F84
451.33
CITY 01 ST LOUIS .9
V. [QUIP
01-1510-129.31
'---- -
00.33 .
--
"
35/939
/2/2//04
S77.$$
S/LLI9ANS Scot
ART LINESILS
73-4344-569-92
-----
- -.._
5i7.53 .
'
31N13
11/21/N
77.32
BILL TIUASTOC
3T42R CONSULT
01-L306-129-31
.9NA•
Kttt :
Wall"
- A.3)
U # 411
CNII//sC"IOLs
01.4356-174.31
95.01 .
Kt[11
111/N
N.W."CO
NILLSM
VO VIDa CO
Yt-1912-513-90
'
octal
1111/flN /
1.21•
Cl NilltA
VIVO DISC
il-1913-5I S•90
2
K7212
12/2l/9a
614.1f
ORISJS C0 .CA
Lie AJACN
71.1110-57s.90
Kr212. __
12/21/29
_ 1{.33•
GAIGIS coma
LIO DISC
71-19H.115.90
.
K/2l/
12/11214
21.15
GAIISS COME
11IIE WACN
11-1112-SIS•40
K7212
12/21/64
26.19
GAINS COMER
ZINC AURCM
n-Alit-515-90
K7212
12/2//84
26.14.
MINI CO3KN
UTAt 911RC11
7T•1912-515-90
_
Kr212
12/2144
.11.
"Isis C"AEA
dive else
11.4e13-51i•90
935. YE A
-
octal
1;R1/N....- -
- 401.61 -
90 A-T.LTA
Lie 9URC11
71-4910-SI5.90
11:2213
121"114
Is.sY-
CO ■M3LLIAG
LIS DISC
71-4611.S15-90
NCIAI3 _ _
I2111164__-_..
212.41
CO ►91LLIIS
AK N1DCN
11-19R-SI S•90
-
1Ct213
11/21NG
1.25.
C3 Pl ILLS-S
.149 DISC
71-4913.s1s-90
093.90 -
Nazis -_
12/N/414. _.
t.209. So
QUALITY YIK
.12 AMC"
71-1810•ils•10
•• -ENS
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
NANUAL
•AFIAL
.AUUAL
-.MULL
-AMAL
.AMUAL
-ANUAL
AANDAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
19716 CITY
or oaDRe
Cer.[ REGISTER
11-16-64
rAU 11 ,
£,
atu-aCsu
f-
�y#....
"'1i/tl"t'-,
Rd7•:
6WLETI Yf R[
L76 DISC
11-4611.flf.91
RNWLL
•��
•►
•PtLt aL
_ _--__
IS: /n\
12111/84
70.96
6: NUT ME PARTS
EWIP Pts
01-at]1-111,71
RAWK
lz•A6L
16.t3---.
YERJIRi. PASTS----
Emir PT, ---..---01-U3x-2N-ax
--
IUYYµ
MCI"6
12/11/e4
6.45
6c4UtNE PARTS
EWIP PIS
72-4212.]49•01
NAVAL
14:7216
12/21n4
10.3s
6Ewtic PARTS
[wt- rill
71•4212O6r.r2
RWAL
.
W1211
la/alm
21.72
NM t1rT0 6 RAOa\TOR
Clear N
01•4212-249-42
now&
• 1
_-25.30
McIa/6
li"1/\A
t0. )D
LARL coz0rr CIIPTe
cMr/6Lisms
01-4756-m-33
RaleN
-I
MCFn0
12/tl/6A
NI J\
re Rt
KRR NAG. "aDLN
U•11411
MANUAL
-I
-octal a-_-..f2R//\a__-__
_ 266.01 --.
Pab ---.
Still 0411. ML--____
01.4I4I.I21.61---
04441141.
111:I119
1RIMS4
426.23
PIRA
PENA POL MR
01-4141-126-71
e•NUK
v-1
10TI.)z •
,
Retal0
--12/11/114
611.49
GAIGis CD)-Q
LID -Mac.
n.4810-S1S-90
MANUAL
W"
0Wa0
still"&
13.11•
6196I] LronP
LID DISC
71-4411-SIS-90
MANUAL
.�
--_-r
NPRI
_ 12"t/66.----
117.0
GRI661 CDDKA
YINC PUACAI --
n-44/2-Sts-901
MAMIL
Mc/la0
I2I21/64
304.
&ATSss cosKA
.IRE DISC
n.a6l PfisNO
MANUAL
J�
esl.n
.I
'--
McFall
12/21164
167.06
DULLIT. flat
LID PUACM
11.4610-117-00
MANUAL
u'O,
McFall
1211IPS4
11.13-
DuaI TV ASI[
LID DISC
n-461t-S1S-9O
.ANVIL
-1
_. RC7zzl_
.11/2tI24_..
5e1.66-
DUALITY dial
LID DISC
11-4613-715-00
-ANUAL
Israel
12/11044
961.96
DUALITr RISC
LID P11aCR
/1.4415-517.90
MANUAL
to
1CF821
12121164
1107
WaL(TV MERGE
LID DISC
n-4614-SIS.00
MANUAL
`1
McFall
I2111/64
11.11.
DUALITI RING
LID DISC
71-40I4-115-99
uWAL
]S2.A] .
V
-
RC/tzL---
-I aR7/L1--. _.
0N.13.
toPRLIRO
YIRE PURCn
71-4818-SIS-90-
MANUAL
kraal
Itfn/\&
e91.50
0 PRILILLIN
MIRE
n-A 611.1IS-r0
MANUAL
RCRla
It/Zl"A
11.31.
Is P/ILLtN
DISC
MINE DISC
n-t\11-S1s-t0
"AWOL
`
Mcpzz
et'.10•
PIhLEP6
MIME
71-4e13-5IS-00
MANUAL
KR22
12121/\t
1Ln/SA
11.St
IS
11 PHILLIP$
DIISCM
MINE DISC
n-Al1a-S1S•r0
nAWAL
Mcratt
12nv64
1•a2•
Eo rr:utPS
MNE DISC
n.Anas"-DD
MAWL
`
MCftzA
1212116,
1.153.16
-ERA
PIRA RETRO PN•PDA
Ot KIN-11/-11
NUAL
N
Klzzl
I2/11/64
I52.46
-[at
P.-RA AETRO PAT-POL
01-L121-121-71
MANUAL
MOrz24 -
Iz/zl/DA
494.76
PENA
-EN• ARAC PAY-PIL
01-4141-126-71
MANUAL
1027.32 .
MCraas..
I2/21 fat
16.11
*OP1111 61-
IUELSOLUSESES
OI.N204aR.&t
Mcw2s
e6."
SOARER
1UELS/LUREs
R.6220.70.0/
"AIIAL
-AWAL
I1'Jz2S
11/11/RL
12/n rel
'0•.NO
OIL
60PMER oll
NEL1IlV6O
)].A7le-SNAP&
MAwAI
`
MOraN
It121.14
353.33
PTRA
-ERA POLICE MOL oil
os-4161-111.71
MARY4
s
N..
[ITS
M M4o `;
-
f.pCg [[/11TCR
12.24-94
Fa1[ Ii
._2...-..J.Y_-.JK....L�
-_
A
12/21/84
123 JF
F[R►
Ft44
Hilt
TO
fill
01.4141-239-IZ
RAINY
Nc -
12/21//4
t.44
F[RA
►Pa
11/19
t9
1212
01-4141A40-t)
RARIIY
,enn
lim/ A
A-21
Rrn
_---F[RRJ.1
Afs9
.vz
ef+,LSASLI_
_-RygL-.. _-
Krair
12/21/94
IOS.91
1%,
F[NA
11fR
TO
lift
01-4141-04M17
RANDY
KTTir
Ir/21144
44.11
F[RN
a[RA
I1fl•
TO
1212
0/-4N.899-Ir
NAMIY
__JCi2z2__l2[zl/14
-fi132.4L---r[RRL_.--_--_---._
PENA
11119
IS
1i11-.01-6141-119-31------.
NARUAL-
Krzzr
12/21/94
32.09
PEAR
MEI,
11119
To
1212
01-4141-115-31
RAW L
14:122F
12/11,94
213.64
FERN
F[44
71/19
To
lift
01-4141.121-31
MM111
-Mt221 J222111A
_3/h42
,BRA
_-- _ _.I[RA-11/19
Te_1212--0L41IL114-11-__
R4ROaL
Krzzr
12/21/64
112.94
1[RA
9CRA
11/lo
To
lilt
01-4141-1F4.33
NANUAL
Kriar
12121/64
191./9
PENA
11119
To
1211
01-4141-249.42
YNUAL
.._ KzaB-
.Izlzli$4_-
29.01_ .-.--._--_-.
__.-
-F[NA
11/19
TO
ti/3__-.
0"10.294.41-._
o4
04:7221
1z/21/64
I53.34
PENA
11/19
TO
lift
71-4141-SIS-90
FANUAL
K/2zr
l2/21/44
92.4T
PENA
F[RA
llft9
To
12 it
12.4141-S49-91
RamLL
Kf22f__
121aug L. .__-_
-. 124.20-. -_
_
ICU
11119
To.
1292-_ _.
T3-4U1.369.02 -
MANUAL
Kri2r
lt/21/64
124.20
F[RA
PENA
11/19
T9
lift
13-4141-Sa9.92
MANUAL
Kr22r
12121/84
114.13
.
FTiA
IIn9
To
1211
71-4141-S49-92
MANUAL
K1ZTr.
12/21184.
43.33
FORA
F1U
11119
TC
lilt
14.4141.590-93
AAMAL
1.N19a1 .
_ KR29
_ It/if/N _ - - -
4.71.
COIM atr
S4[i Taa
SALES
TAX
Nov
p
Ot.lf 00-070-07
nAMUAI
Klar9
li/Z1/44
IS.))
C9RR 1t9
SALES 111
SAL!$
TAR Nov
14
41-2222-000-00
MANUAL
RCrai9
I1/21m
2.169.70
C344 REV
SALES TAR
S8[1 Tax
Mr
94
rl.tltz-000.00
n&MEAL
Kf2z1
21/21//4
1.30
CORM ttr
SOLES Tall
SALES TAR
ago
/4
14.2222.000.00
-ANUAL
2.516.32 -
N.S 33.0
13.30
'
11.203.13
534.23
'
2.LU."
949.13
R
FU13
It
TOTAL
F913
41
1010E
FUID
IT
f6F1L
FU/)
F2
TOTAL
F7/9
13
1a I at
- FU10
F4
TOTAL
TOfLL
o[NCOAL FUND
RRRR INFROK 4[oOLltl9 F
LIGURA ONRavfn FUND
"I[R OF2AAIIND FUND
1[9[A OFFgTIM RUND
OXF COURK o P&f[M FO
11 norm a-1- ion
=+inn s
Coun ct, I (A "
John Burger
District 43A
Hennepin County
Committees:
Education
Environment and Natural Resources
Financial Institutions and insurance
General Legislation and Veterans Allans
December 19, 1984
Mary Butler
Mayor of Orono
Orono City Hall
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mary,
Minnesota
House of
Representatives
�XnryA $ipMgJr_$Dea ker
You, your council members and city employees are cordially invited to attend a
public ceremony and accompaning festivities at 2:00 p.m., Saturday, January
12,1985. The occasion is the dedication of a marker in Mound by the Minnesota
Historical Society and the local Westonka Historical Society. The marker
designates Lake Minnetonka a state historical site, and will be erected at the
Mound Depot, where the program will take place.
Activities surrounding the 40-minute dedication ceremony include food, music by
the Westonka High School band, decorations and an historic art, artifact and
photograph display in the depot. Brief comments by Russ Fridley, Director of
Minnesota Historical Society; Mayor Bob Polston of Mound; Buzz Sykes, President
of Westonka Historical Society; and one or two other concerned officials will
comprise the dedicatory program, which we hope Roger Eri wl of Boone and
Erickson, WCCO Radio, will emcee.
We're planning to introduce such notables as Mayors and Council Members from
other Lake Minnetonka cities, Hennepin County Commissioner Bud Robb, Congressmen
Bill Frenzel and Gerry Sikorski, and others we can't now name until we know for
sure who's coming to our party.
In any event, we expect a great crowd of notables from the area and we will
introduce for a greeting those who attend. Please call Dorothy at 296-9552 to
let us know who will attend from your city. We'll have a chair on the platform
for your top representative. A printed program will be made up after we receive
confirmation of those attending.
Cordially,
94rjg-,�
John Burger
State Representative
Reply to 11 367 state oltge Buddmg. st Paul. wmrnanla 55,55 OPoG 16121 AFstsa
C3 31509ayw" Road Long lake Mmneaou 55356 -- Horne 1612) R3.3556 ^
300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, 1- 35101
Gen _
General Offirc Ta;ephone (612) 2916359 r .. D A
A]Ml Vi it Rol„+, I 'II N t CITY J= JKJN.) 1` U[(.20i 1.�
dJA 65 �I H
•`'�....... CRY iTA_ JAY 4V 551", uL >
A Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Loden _1 (J�--(j�.��r-
For more information on items in this publication, call the Communications Dep`dtTmenHt 291.6464.
December 14. 1984
RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Dec. 3.141
Solid Wass -The Metropolitan Council:
- Set a public Narin g on a new wild waste management plan
for the region. See the Coming Meetings section below.
- Approved a RemseyfWashirgton County joint designation
wage•toenergy plan. Most of the counties' solid waste will
now be delisered to a designated facility or facilities. The plan
says assurance of re wale stream is necessary, for financial
support of a facility that would Produce "refuse -derived" fuel
and recover reusable material from the waste.
— Set a public hearing on a revised Environmental Impact
Statement' wopm,," or preliminary, document to reflect
changes in Ramsev and Washington Counties' proposed waste
-
loenergy project. Sea the Public Meetings section.
— Decided to propose legislation amending the 1980 Waste
Management Act. The Council wants to complete the analysis
of feasible alternative, to a towage sludge landfill before com
Deleting an Environmental Impact Statement on any proposed
landfill site. The Council will notify affected property owner,
and local governments that it is seeking this change.
— Approved a solid waste permit for the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission to reopen a landfill to dispose of ash
from incinerated sewage sludge from the Senses sewage treat
mans plant over an existing ash landfill adjacent to the plant
in Eagan.
Transportation —The Council mid a regional Transport&
tion Improvement Program for 1985-1987, a program of
highway and tnmrt Projects proposed for federal funding. is
consistent with regional, state and federal requirements. The
plan includes approximately $663 million to be spent on
highway projects and $269 million for transit projects.
The Council asked Dakota County to address potential
water quality impacts to Jansen. Thomas and Fish Lakes.
The impacts could result from increased twrmwater runoff
due to a proposed expansion of Pilot Knob Rd. from County
Rd. 36 to Interstate Hwy. 35E.
Parks —The Council remanded its acquisition Want contract
with Ramsey County by giving the county S500,000 to purchase
80 acres of land in the Rice Creek Regional Trail corridor.
Aging —The Council voted to continue funding six nutri
banal program, for older People in the uletropol,tw Area in
1985, Congregate dining programs are sponsored by Volume
tars of America, Ramsey Acton Programs and the Scott
Carver Economic Council. HomeEeliverad meal Programs are
sponsored by IN Great., Minneapolis Council of Churches.
tM Ramsey County Human Services Department and the
SeogCarver Economic Council. The Council expects to
receive approximately $3 million to help fund the Projects.
The Council also asked Gov. Rudy Poll to reject a
gate Human Serm"s Subcabinet recommendation that
counties, and not mulhcounly "area agencies on agog;'
such a, the Counsel. N the odminuwal.w focus of led eral
funds avulable fur pl.Wo., to Nip the sore's older people
Comprehensive Plans —The Council denied a Brooklyn Park
comprehensive plan amendment that would change the loin
Lion of a planned highway interchange. The proposal is to
mow a planned interchange with proposed Northtown Hwy.
610 iron the Xerxes Beard Ans. alignment one-half mile west
o the Noble -June An. alignment. To be approved, the
Proceed must first be reviewed under highway interchange
criteria and procedures previously established by the Council.
The Council said the city's amendments to slightly increase
the are, planned !or de,c!opment and to increase the amount
of Islas planned for lower residential densities are consistent
with regional plans.
Heald, —The Council approved , contribution of $5,000
and Its" time to actin in "Health Vote." an information
campvlgn on solutions to rising health care costs. The cash.
paign, to occur in early 1985. will conclude with a citiaan vote
Den a1te Mt," solutions.
Ptenning Assimnce—The Council asked the T<lecommuni.
cations Task Form to establish a task for" of regional govero-
mans officials, cable representatives and others to discuss joint
production and distribution of video for local access channels
and to discuss programming for a regional channel. The request
was based on results of a recent survey of ores governments.
Affkmtive Action —The Council set specific goals in hiring
women and minorities, in contracting for services from
businesses owned by women and minorities and in other
affirmative action practice,.
PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS
Air Quality — The Council will hold a public hearing on pro-
posed abalegies to reduce urban monoxide to acceptable
levels at the mtenection of Smiling and University Avs. in
St. Paul. The hearing will be held Jan. 3. 7 p.m., at the
Hamlin Blanch Library, 1558 W. Minnehaha Av. in St. Paul.
The strategies would amend the regional transportation policy
plan. For a free copy of the proposed Amendment to the Air
Quality Control Plan, call the Communications Dept. at
291 6464. If you have any questions, oll Ann Braden, front-
portation planner, at 2916525.
Parke -The Metropolitan Council will hold a public hearing
on charges in in capital Improvement Program ICIPI fed
ragioml recreation Parks and open space. It will be held Jim. 7
before the Council's Metropolitan Systems Committee at
A p.min the Council Cham"n. For a free copy of the CIP
document, no. 1144 153. call the Comma.+ -Arlon, Dept. in
291 6464. If you have any questions, call _a.k Mauriu, Parks
planner, in 2916602.
Solid Waen-The Council will hold a public meeting on a
revised Ernoonmental Impact Statement ",coping;' or
preliminary, document for the Ramsey Washington County
waste tnenergy project The counties are planning to build a
900 tonyerdav wage processing plant. It will seperate
recvclable materials and produce refuse "rived fuel. The
locatmn of the project has also changed from Lake Elmo to
Newport. The meeting will be hold Jan. 10 at 3 p.m. in me
Council Chambers. For a free copy of a document describing
the revised scop.ng report. call the Communications Dept. at
291.6464. It you have questions, all Wayne Nelson, Council
planner, at 291.6406.
Solid Wes,. — The Council will hold a public hearing on a
proposed new Solid Was.a Management Development Guide.,
Policy Plan on Jan. 28 at 1:30 p.m. and at 7 p.m. in the
Council Chambers. The document Is a plan for managing the
region's solid waste through the year 20D0. It calls for ending
the dumping of unprocessed solid waste in landfills after 1990.
allowing disposal of only residuals in processed waste after
that date. It aim regwres mandatory source separation of
recyclables after 1987,
For a free copy of the document, no. 1284-160, call the
Communications Dept. at 291,6464. To speak at the hearing.
all Lucy Thompson at 291-6521, 11 you have any questions,
or to submit written comments, Contact Paul Smith al 291-6408,
STATE OF REGION EVENT SET FOR JANUARY
Pressing regional Issues will be the focus of the Metropoli.
on Council's annual State of the Region event Jan. 30 as the
Hilton Inn, 1330 Industrial Blvd., Minneapolis. The event, for
public officials and interested citizens from throughout the
region, will feature a dinner address on the slate of the region
by Council Chu, Sandra Gaowlpmg.
A "Regional Citizen of the Year" will also be named (see
stem belowl.
Panel discussions on four major issues will precede the
dinner. The panels scheduled are:
— Transportation; How Can We Serve the Suburbs?
— Legislating Basic Health Benefits Con vs. Consumer
Protection.
— Marketing Solid Waste Abatement: How Do We Get Two
Million People Involved?
— Keeping Sewage Out of the Mississippi: It's Everybody's
Problem.
The penis will be made up of local and national experts in
the iseuu.
Registration begins at 3:30 p.m., discussions at 4 p.m, and
the dinner at 6:30 p.m. The cost of the event, including dinner,
4 Sit 3. Atvance ra tittration is required by Jan. 23,
For more information, all the Communications Dept. at
291 6464
NOMINATE SOMEONE FOR
'REGIONAL CITIZEN OF THE YEAR'
The Metropolitan Council is seeking nominations for its
"Regional Citizen of the Year" award, to be presented at the
1985 State of the Region event Jan. 30 in Minneapolis. The
winner will be selected by a committer charred! by Council
Member Gertrude Ulrich.
The nominee must live m the,.verrcil Metropolitan
Area and have made a significant contribution to the region
a a whole. To nominate someone, send the name, address and
(shone number land the came information for the nominator)
and a letter detailing the nominee's regional Contributions to
Lynne Williams, Metropolitan Council, 300 Metro Square
Bldg.. 71h and Robert Sis., St. Paul, MN 55101 For more
information, all 2916511.
Nominations an due by Dec. 31. In addition to new
nominations, the selection commit" will reconsider names
submitted to last year's competition.
VACANCIES OPEN ON PARKS.
WASTE CONTPOL COMMISSIONS
The Metropolitan Council is accepting applications for
membership on Ine Mehopolnan Waste Control and Park, and
Open Space Commissions. Appomfees would serve four year
terms beginning January 1985 and must live in the districts
from which they are appointed. Members receive a $50 "per
diem' on meeting days.
Applicants for four seats on the waste control commission
MWCC) and for four on the parks commission must live in the
following commission districts: Dist. E, southern Anoka Coun.
ty and northern Anoka County, including the city of Anoka,
plus Plymouth, Maple Grove, Champlin, Dayton and Medicine
Lake in Hennepin County; Dist. F, St. Louis Park, Golden
Valley, Robbinsdale, Edina, Richfield and Bloomington;
Dist. 0, western Hennepin County including Lake Minnetonka
area, Eden Prairie and Hopkins. and Scott and Carver Counties
plus Burnsville and Lakeville in Dakota County; and Dist H,
northern Dakota County plus the Highland Park section of
St. Paul and southern Dakota and Washington Counties.
The appli etum deadline is Dec. 28. The Council will hold
public meetings Jan. 7 for parks and Jan. 8 for MWCC appl,
cants. For more information, Call Sandi Lindstrom st 291 6390.
NEW PUBLICATIONS
Consumer's Guide to Hospital Specialty Services. Scot.
1984. Tells Consumer what they should consider to make
sure they receive the best in special services like open heart
surgery or radiation therapy. No. 1884462; 25 pp.: $1.50.
Economic Development Data Kit Dec. 1984, Shaped like
a briefcase, kit contains 14 reports and maps showing advam
cages of Twin Cities Area as place to start or expand a business.
No. 0884-080; $25, 8,ochure summarizing Twin Cities'
strong points avaslable at no charge: A Brief Casa for the Twin
Cities Manopolin, Ara, Nov. 1984. no. 0884-110. 23 Co.
198283 Subsidized Housing Activity in the Twin Citi"
Metropolita Ana. Nov. 1984. Report pivs 1.008 unis evere
Wood to the afei s stock of subsidized nousmg m the tworyear
aired, bringing total to 41,718. No. 1984 162: 30 pp.: SI.50.
1985 Legislative OrsMcn. Dec. 1984. This 17x22-in. map
snows Twin Cmant what legislative districts they live in argil
who their spite legislators are. No. 06 84-159; 50 ants.
No. Initiative: Solid Witte Management Dec 1984. Thh
is a reprint of articles appearing in the Sept.'84 Monitor Co
the Council's solid waste initiative. Discusses issues and
approaches to redirecting the region's waste system toward
resource recovery and away from lardfllling. No. 0884-148.
no charge.
COMING MEETINGS IDec. 27-Jan. 4)
iMerrrop an tenrat,ve. To verily, oil 291645-:.t
Long -Tar. Cara Task Force, Thursday. Dec. 27, 8 a.m.,
Conference Room E.
Metropolitan and Community Dmlopment Commuter,
Thursday. Dec. 27, 1 30 p.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Council, Thursday, Dec. 27, 4 pm., Council
Chambers.
Technical Adeimry Committer (of the Transportation
Advisory Bard), Wednesday, Jan 2.9 a. m.. Council
Chambers.
Regional Transit Bnard/Mehoalitan System, Commitere,
Wednesday, Jan. 2, 4 p. m., Council Chambers
Emimmeam al Rdaouraf Committed, Wednesday. Jan. 2.
4 D m., Conference Room E.
Metrealinn Fee, Corridor Study Soearinq Committer,
Thursday, Jan. 3, noon, Conference Room E
Metropolitan and Community Development Commines
Thunday. Jan 3, 1 30 p in , Council Chambers
Management Committee. Thursday. Jan 3. 3 p m..
Council Chambers
Criminal Juma Advisory Committee. F. ,!a.. Lit 4.
noon. Council Chambers.
la,nua 3,1985
DRAFT
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE/POLICY PLAN
For a Public Hearing to Be Held:
Monday, Jan. 28, 19>N
1:30 p.m., resuming at 7 p.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
Metropolitan Council
3DO Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone: (612) 291-6359
December 1984
Publication No. 12-84-160
CONTENTS
Page
PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY..............................................I
Introduction...............................................................1
Purpose.................................................................I
Authority...............................................................2
Implementation and Use of the Guide.....................................5
Summary....................................................................7
Major
Changes from the 1981 Guide.......................................7
MajorPolicies
..........................................................8
System Plan.............................................................8
PART 2: BACKGROUND...........................................................
10
Introduction..............................................................
10
Existing Waste Management System ..........................................
10
Mixed Municipal Solid Waste ............................................
10
SpecialWaste..........................................................
12
HistoricalOverview.......................................................
12
If Current Practices Continue .............................................
14
Future Land Disposal Needs .............................................
14
Consequences...........................................................
14
PART 3: REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ...............................
19
Purpose...................................................................
19
Alternatives and Priorities ...............................................
19
Overview...............................................................
19
WasteReduction........................................................
20
Source Separation......................................................22
Centralized Materials Recovery .........................................
24
Waste Combustion.......................................................
24
Centralized Composting and Co -Composting ...............................
25
Land Disposal..........................................................
26
Roles and Responsibilities for Implementing
the Regional Strategy......... 28
Subregional Service Areas ..............................................
28
Waste Collection Services ..............................................
30
Market Development.....................................................
31
Public Education and Participation .....................................
31
Policies for Solid Waste Management .......................................
32
PART 4: SYSTEM PLAN..........................................................
34
Development Program for Waste Reuction and Resource
Recovery .............. 34
Development Schedule ................................................
Waste Reduction and Source Separation ..................................
36
Centralized Processing ................................................. 50
Market Development.....................................................
57
Communication of Solid Waste Information ...............................
59
Land Disposal Development Program .........................................
62
Introduction...........................................................62
Allocation of Land Disposal Capacity ...................................
63
Land'111 Development Schedule ..........................................
64
AcquisitionProcedures .................................................
66
Postclosure Management and Disposition .................................
68
Development Program Costs .................................................
69
Costs of the Existing System ...........................................
69
Costs of the Proposed System ...........................................
69
Financing Alternatives .................................................
73
PART 5: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..................................................
76
Implementation Approaches .................................................
76
Overview...............................................................
76
Review Procedures......................................................
78
County and Local Plan Reviews and Plan Content Requirements...............78
County Master Plans ....................................................
78
LocalComprehensive Plans ..............................................
81
Implementation Monitoring
81
.................................................
CountyAnnual Reports..................................................81
Legislative Commission on Waste Management .............................
82
Contingency Procedures .................................................
82
Metropolitan Solid Waste Assistance Program ..............................
83
Resources Recovery Grants and Loans ....................................
83
TechnicalAssistance...................................................84
DEFINITIONS..................................................................
85
APPENDIX: REVIEW CRITERIA ....................................................
97
PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This document is a plan for managing the Metropolitan Area's solid waste well
past the year 2000. It is intended to carry out state and federal requirements
for proper waste management. It is also intended to serve as a basis for devel-
oping a regional system for dealing with solid waste that emphasizes recovery
of resources and minimizes the land disposal of solid waste.
Solid waste includes trash, garbage, and other discards, as well as nonhazard-
ous wastes of industrial and similar activities. In the Metropolitan Area,
solid waste is commonly disposed of in landfills. But the volume of solid
waste is increasing; landfill capacity is being rapidly used up; it is diffi-
cult to find new satisfactory sites for land disposal; and existing sites are
going to have serious long-term environmental consequences. At the same time,
rapid technological developments in resource recovery and renewed interest in
recycling are now making possible other waste management techniques.
In response to this situation, the 1980 Minnesota Legislature passed the state
Waste Management Act, significantly increasing the Metropolitan Council's
responsibility for solid waste management in the Metropolitan Area. This act
charged the Council with providing a long-range plan for managing solid waste
in the region that provides for the reduction of waste, recovery of materials
and energy and minimizes the practice of land disposal. The act requires the
plan to set regional waste management policy and provide schedules for devel-
oping waste facilities and activities to manage solid waste through the year
2000.
This guide responds to the 1980 directive. It replaces the solid waste manage-
ment chapter of the Council's Metro olitan Develo ment Guide that the Council
adopted in 1979 and amended in he o i Waste Management DeveloInAnt
Guide/Policy Plan is one chapter of the Metro o tan eve o ment ui e. While
most chapters provide policy and development direct on or a spec is unc-
tional system, such as solid waste management, the Metropolitan Development
Framework, adopted in 1975, presents broad integrating policies for coordina-
tion of regional development. Individual chapters of the Development Guide are
supportive of the Development Framework and incorporate its orientation on the
nature, timing and magnitude of regional growth.
The broad goals of the Development Framework provide a resource management
strategy that retains and enhances the livable qualities of the Metropolitan
Area, solving existing and future problems before crises occur and that pro-
motes orderly growth and economic development within the region. The frame-
work's primary objectives include protection and preservation of the natural
environment by basing physical and economic development decisions on sound
environmental practices, and establishment of resource management processes
that incorporate and interrelate all planning and programs under the Council's
jurisdiction.
Consistent with the Development Framework, the Council has developed this guide
for solid waste management to protect the public health, safety and welfare of
the people of the Metropolitan Area, to change existing reliance on land dis-
posal methods and to ensure that environmentally safe and efficient methods are
used to manage solid waste.
The guide proposes a regional system of coordinated waste management services
and makes recommendations about specific facilities and service areas. The
guide also provides objectives, policies, review criteria and strategies for
evaluating and implementing solid waste proposals.
Part 2 of the guide briefly discusses the existing solid waste management sys-
tem. It describes potential consequences if current practices continue. Part
3 is the regional waste management strategy. It expresses the Council's over-
all approach to proper solid waste management and describes how the Council
will proceed with implementation of a new waste management system. Part 3
includes policies for waste reduction, source separation, waste processing and
land disposal. Part 4 is the regional system plan. The system plan consists
of three parts: 1) a development program for waste reduction and resource
recovery; 2) a development program for land disposal that identifies landfill
capacity needs to handle waste remaining after reduction and recovery; and
3) the costs and financing methods to implement the development programs. Plan
implementation is discussed in Part 5. Plan implementation responsibilities
are described for the Council, metropolitan counties, local jurisdictions and
the private sector. The appendix contains criteria for reviewing solid waste
permit applications, solid waste supply and processing contracts, county waste
district proposals and county waste designation proposals.
AUTHORITY
Federal Leqislation
The 1976, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580) imposes
federal requirements and provides authority for dealing with the problems of
managing solid and hazardous waste. Congress Wentified a number of problems,
relating to the increasing quantities of solid and hazardous waste, the protec-
tion of public health and environment, and the conservation of material and
energy resources. Any waste material that goes on the land, regardless of its
physical form, must be managed in a manner consistent with the 1976 law.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act provides for technical and financial
assistance to states for developing environmentally acceptable methods of man-
aging solid and hazardous wastes. It prohibits future open dumping. It
requires that existing open dumps be closed or upgraded to sanitary landfills.
It regulates the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous
wastes. It establishes guidelines for the collection, transportation, separa-
tion, recovery and disposal of solid wastes.
Subtitle D of the act is particularly important to the Council's solid waste
program. It provides guidelines for developing and implementing state and
regional solid waste management is. Because the Council's directive under
state law conforms closely with '-tent and requirements of the federal law,
in 1977 the governor designated the agency responsible for solid
waste management planning in the i Area, pursuant to the provisions
of the federal act.
The Council and state agencies are implementing other fc-derally mandated
programs that relate directly or indirectly to the Council's solid waste
program. Among these are the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law
92-500), Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and Clean Air Act (Public
Law 95-95). Wherever possible, this guide reflects a coordinative approach to
these efforts to provide effective support and yet minimize duplication.
State Legislation
Planning and controlling solid waste generation, transportation and disposal in
Minnesota are the responsibilities of counties, municipalities, regional govern-
ments and state agencies. These public entities have various independent and
joint responsibilities and statutory authorities largely under the state Waste
Management Act.
In the Metropolitan Area, municipalities, townships and counties are responsi-
ble for regulating collection and transportation of solid waste and certain
aspects of facility location and operation. Counties are directed to prepare
master plans that describe and govern existing and proposed solid waste
activities, functions and facilities of the county and municipalities within
the county's jurisdiction (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.803). These plans, in turn,
are governed by and required to be consistent with the Council's guide on
solid waste management. Municipalities and counties are authorized to own and
operate solid waste disposal facilities, and have various powers with respect
to financing such facilities and executing contracts involving ownership and
operation.
The Council and counties have shared responsibilities in implementing a devel-
opment process for waste reduction and resource recovery and solid waste
landfill siting in the Metropolitan Area (see Figure 1-1). The counties must
amend their master plans to implement waste reduction and resource recovery
facilities and activities. The siting and reduction/recovery process is
governed by and must be consistent with the Council's solid waste guide. The
Council and counties have authority to implement the process, including control
over the flow of waste and authority in some cases to override local community
vetos of siting decisions. In addition six counties have located eligible
sites for the land disposal of municipal solid waste. Sites approved by the
Council are part of a metropolitan inventory of eligible sites. The Council
determines the number of sites counties must acquire based on the amount of
recovery and recycling that can be achieved. The counties have the responsi-
bility of acquiring the landfills from the metropolitan inventory.
Concurrent with metropolitan solid waste siting efforts are other siting
efforts and responsihilities. The Council has the responsibility of finding
disposal sites for sewage sludge and incinerator ash (residual solids) produced
from the region's sewage treatment plants and for investigating alternatives to
land disposal of these materials. The treatment plants are operatea by the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, which must acquire the selected disposal
sites in accordance with the Council's Water Resources Management Guide and
its solid waste guide.
At V 'ate level, the Minnesota Waste Management Board has the responsibility
of de , oping acceptable management practices for the disposal of hazardous
waste, including responsibilities for hazardous waste planning, siting, permit-
ting and financing. The Waste Management Board also has authority to finance
and regulate certain aspects of solid waste facilities and activities outside
the Metropolitan Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is respon-
sible for adopting a state solid waste plan and waste facility regulations.
rirp,,e I-i
DECISION STEPS IN DEVELOPING NEW REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
�.Mosa�olaaone
,---------------------
.44.
.a.
cww.. L._i_:J
.wr
��.see
n.nw
Cwww4
y
rNM.nM
�.S
4.wN1..
IY.w w
MYTllleMr o[cl/IOM!
I •• .
L=_J
i .aro i .w. � .NtT—} ,w. i .— os� .ose i .981-:000
Solid waste facilities in the Metropolitan Area are governed by an elaborate
permitting process. They must receive state permits tho* are reviewed and
approved by both the MPCA and the Council. In addition, counties are
authorized to require permits or licenses for these facilities, and county and
municipal zoning requirements may govern and control certain aspects of
facility operation and location. Solid waste facility decisions made by a
county, the Council and the MPCA are governed by and must be consistent with
Council and county solid waste plans and with MPCA regulations.
The 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.851 and subse-
quent sections) requires that solid waste plans be included in county compre-
hensive plans submitted to the Council for review. The law provides for
intercounty and regional coordination of these plans by requiring compliance
with the Council's regional solid waste plan, and by giving the Counc41
authority to review county plans and comment on their compatibility with plans
of other jurisdictions. Moreover, the Council is authorized to review all
comprehensive plans, including county solid waste plans, to ensure consistency
with Council plans for parks, sewers, transportation ani airport systems.
County master plans prepared in accordance with the Waste Management Act can
fulfill solid waste planning requirements for counties ,nder the Land Planning
Act.
IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF THE GUIDE
Metropolitan Council
The Council will use several means to implement this guide. These include
reviewing county and local solid waste plans and reports, reviewing various
waste facility projects and proposals, conducting monitoring and oversight
activities and by providing technical and financial assistance. The Cou.xil
will also use the guide chapter to advise the MPCA, Waste Management Board and
Legislative Commission on Waste Management on issues affecting solid waste
management in the region and state.
In implementing this guide, the Council will give consideration to the follow-
ing: orderly and economic development of the region; preservation and the best
and most economical use of land and water; protection and enhancement of
environmental quality; conservation and reuse of resources and energy; preser-
vation and promotior of conditions that stimulate efficient, low-cost, competi-
tive and adaptable systems of solid waste management; and orderly resolution of
questions concerning changes in systems of solid waste management.
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
A 30-member Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee assists the Coun-
cil in preparing and implementing this guide chapter, and advises the Council
on issues affecting solid waste management in the region. Committee membership
consists of one-third citizen representatives, one-third representatives from
metropolitan counties and municipalities and one-third representatives from
private waste management firms. An additional representative from the MPCA,
one from the Waste Management Board and one from the Minnesota Department of
Health serve as ex-officio members. Temporary members were added to the
committee representing cities and towns with eligible land disposal facility
sites in the Council's metropolitan inventory for the purpose of assisting in
the preparation of the guide and a report to the state legislature on methods
of mitigating and compensating for the local risks, cost and other adverse
effects of land disposal facilities.
Governmental Agencies and the Public
The Metropolitan Council will be working closely with governmental agencies and
the private sector in implementing this guide. Success in meeting the objec-
tives will depend greatly on multijur,sdictional cooperation and understanding,
and mutual commitments to implement sand solutions among many jurisdictions.
Specific implementat;or. responsibilities of governmental units and the ,.rivate
sector are detailed in Part 5.
Responsibility for implementing much of the guide rests with local jurisdic-
tions, counties and the private solid waste management industry. The Council
and aopropriate state agencies should offer as much technical and program
assistance as possible. This inOudes assisting local jurisdictions and
counties in developing solid waste plans and regulatory mechanisms, and in
acquiring adequate funding for specific projects or programs. The Council,
appropriate state agencies and the metropolitan counties should maintain data
that the public and private sectors can use for solid waste planning and
development activities.
Improvements in solid waste management will entail increased costs to most
sectors of the region. Public willingness to pay for improved waste management
is difficult to predict, especially without precise data on the nature and
scope of increased costs. For thp�e reasons, the Council will place heavy
emphasis on public education and ..areness.
Use of the Guide
This guide provides a mechanism for decision -makers to approach solid
waste management in the Metropolitan Area. It will be used primarily by the
following agencies and businesses:
- Metropolitan Council: to review and approve solid waste disposal permit
applications submitted to the MPCA for proposed facilities in the
Metropolitan Area; to review and L. ,ment to the MPCA, Waste Management
Board and Legislative Committee on Waste Management on solid waste issues
affecting the Metropolitan Area and state; to review and approve county
and local solid waste plans, county annual reports, and proposals for
county waste districts and waste flow designations; to review and approve
requests for land disposal certificates of need; to review and approve
county and local restrictions on waste facilities and the transportation
of solid waste; and to review and approve all long-term (over five years)
public entity contracts for solid waste supply and processing, to guide
the development of regional programs for solid waste public education and
awareness and to develop markets for reusable or recyclable waste
materials; and to administer a technical and f uncial assistance program.
Metropolitan counties: to develop solid waste master plans and reports; to
site, acquire, construct, improve and operate solid waste management facil-
ities; to implement solid waste districts and waste flow designations,
coordinate public education and information activities.
- Metropolitan municipalities and townships: to develop solid waste elements
to comprehensive plans; to implement local waste management activities and
facilities; to develop ordinances and local controls on the construction
and operation of waste facilities and on the collection and transportation
of solid wa'te.
Minnesota Waste Management Board: to coordinate technical and financial
assistance activities and public education and information activities;
coordinate implementation of county waste management districts.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: to fulfill the Metropolitan Area por-
tion of a state solid waste plan pursuant to the requirements of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; to provide technical and financial
assistance to cities and townships in the region; to coordinate public
education and information activities.
Private solid waste firms: to develop and operate waste facilities and
services.
SUMMARY
MAJOR CHANGES FROM THE 1981 GUIDE
This guide differs significantly from the Council's 1981 solid waste management
guide. One major change is that this guide provides more specific direction on
when waste facilities and services should be provided or what their capacities
should be. It establishes specific implementation objectives and time
schedules. Specific assignments to implement waste facilities and services are
given to counties, cities and towns. The Council can track more closely
progress in meeting the objectives and time schedules, and contingency options
can be used if implementation is not working or proceeding slower than
necessary.
A second change is the strengthened methods of implementing this guide.
Through plan approvals and review functions, the Council can implement many of
the guide's policies. The Council now also has a resource recovery grant and
loan and technical assistance program that will help implement policy.
Additional review mechanisms have been included in the guide: county waste
district proposals and county waste -flow designation proposals.
Another significant change is that economic considerations alone will not deter-
mine the relative priority of waste management strategies. lha 1981 chapter
stated that economic feasibility was a prerequisite for waste facilities and
services that would be implemented. This guide recognizes that the present
solid waste system does not fully incorporate its total cost. The benefits of
recycling, the avoided costs of taking less waste to landfills, and the future
costs of controlling environmental problems are not passed on to the waste
generator. This guide states that economics may be a factor, but that alterna-
tives to land disposal do not have to be competititve with current costs.
Another change is in the scope and content of the system plan of this guide.
The 1981 guide had system plans for municipal solid waste, tree waste manage-
ment and sewage treatment residuals. This guide chapter, in an effort to
sharpen the focus, has a system plan only for municipal solid waste manage-
ment. Sewage treatment residuals, sludge and ash from the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission's treatment plants, are dealt with in the Council's Water
Resources Mana ement guide. Tree waste management is no longer a priority
prob em or the re9 on, and its regulation will be left to the MPCA and local
units of government. To the extent tree wastes affect the regional solid waste
management system, the policies and criteria in this guide can be used if neces-
sary.
This guide does not deal with hazardous waste management; except for hazardous
substances generated by households. The 1981 guide provided very 'imited
direction for managing hazardous wastes in the region. The Waste Management
Act has shifted hazardous waste planning, siting and regulating functions to
the Waste Management Board and the MPCA.
The guide retains the metropolitan counties as the primary implementation
authorities. However, cities and towns now are expected to implement parts of
the guide. The 1984 amendment to the Waste Management Act required the
Council's regional plan to set waste reduction and resource recovery objectives
for cities and townships in the region. With this change, the legislature
seems to have envisioned a more deliberate, responsible role for local
governments.
MAJOR POLICIES
The guide calls for establishing a regional system of coordinated processing
and recycling services. The system must be comprised of centralized processing
facilities, transfer stations and composting and recycling services. The
counties have the major responsibility to implement the system.
A major policy requires the termination of landfilling of mixed municipal solid
waste after 1990. Only the nonrecoverable residuals remaining from waste pro-
cessing could be landfilled after that date. To date, there has been little
effort to control the types of wastes going to land disposal facilities. The
technology is available to impose this ban, and it is possible to have such
services region -wide after 1990. Processing would include recovering the
recyclable, compostable and combustible wastes.
Another major policy requires Metropolitan Area generators of municipal solid
waste after 1987 to separate recyclables and compostable yard waste materials
from the remaining waste. Currently these materials include leaves, grass
clippings and other organic waste from lawn and garden maintenance and paper,
glass and metals. Counties, cities and towns will have to provide recycling
services for these materials within the next two to three years.
Lstablishing centrally coordinated programs for public education and parti-
cipation and resource recovery market development are required by 1986. The
Council will assume the major responsibility for establishing these programs,
but other groups, particularly the counties and state agencies, will be
involved as well. Both these programs are given immediate priority.
SYSTEM PLAN
The system plan in this guide is described in Part 4. The system plan identi-
fies projects and activities that are necessary to meet waste management needs
until the year 2000. The system plan consists of two development programs, one
for waste reduction and resource recovery and one for land disposal. The costs
and methods of financing the development programs are also described.
The development program for waste reduction and resource recovery specifies
levels of reduction/recovery that must be attained as well as the timing and
likely location of projects and activities. The program specifies that waste
reduction activities can reduce solid waste generated by about four percent in
1990. Source separation activities should reach a 16 percent recovery level by
this date. Centralized processing facilities (transfer station/processing
facilities, waste combustion and co -composting) can manage about 80 percent of
the region's solid waste by 1990. The development program also describes the
efforts that are necessary to implement region -wide market development and
solid waste communications programs.
The land disposal development program states that three new landfill facilities
will need to be opened in the region. The program requires Anoka County to
open a facility in 1987, Hennepin County in 1991 and Washington County in
1995. The program states that these facilities would dispose of only pro-
cessed residuals or special wastes. The program sets a ceiling on the amount
of new capacity that can be implemented at 7,245 acre-feet.
A unique feature of the land disposal development program is that it is based
on implementing feasible and prudent waste reduction and resource recovery
alternatives. The Council is requ'red by the Waste Management Act to approve
certificates of need for new land disposal capacity. Certificates of need can
be approved only if there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the
disposal facility. The development program for waste reduction and resource
recovery sets the levels of feasible and prudent alternatives. This require-
ment of certificate of need was an added protection in the Act to ensure that
land disposal would be used only as a last resort.
Finally, the costs and methods of financing the development programs are
described. It is estimated that by 1990 costs to household generators of solid
waste would increase by $30 to $50 annually. This represents about a 30 to 50
percent increase in charges to household over current costs. The total costs
of implementing the development programs is about S345 million.
PART 2: BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the waste management system now operating in the Twin
Cities and its history. It describes the evolution of change in federal, state
and regional waste management policy over the past two decades and provides an
assessment of the consequences of continuing current waste management prac-
tices. These factors are the context within which the regional strategy (Part
3) and its policies were developed.
EXISTING WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
The Metropolitan Area generates nearly 5,500 tons of mixed municipal solid
waste daily --roughly 5.3 pounds per person. Mixed municipal solid waste con-
sists of paper, food waste, yard waste, glass, metals and miscellaneous other
materials collected from residential, commercial and industrial sources. About
two thirds is generated by households and businesses; industry generates the
remainder.
While most local governments regulate collection of solid waste --restricting
hours of collection, roadways travelled or requiring other actions for public
health or nuisance control --few communities operate collection services and
only a handful contract for waste collection. Most of the region's mixed
municipal waste is collected under an "open" arrangement where each waste
generator purchases collection service directly from a waste hauling firm.
More than 150 private collection companies serve the region, ranging in size
from small family businesses to local offices of multinational waste management
corporations.
Ninety-five percent of the region's mixed municipal waste is landfilled. It is
estimated that eight percent goes to landfills in counties bordering the
region. About 87 percent or 1.7 million tons is disposed of annually in the
eight landfills currently operating within the Metropolitan F. ,.
Estimates of the amount of the region's mixed municipal wasL, -ecovered range
from three to seven percent, but little reliable data is available. Surveys
indicate that over 40 percent of the region's residents recycle some portion of
their household waste. The Council's 1984 Recycle It! directory lists 254
sites in the region that accept recycled materialsT. —These facilities operate
either as drop-off repositories, taking in one or more types of recyclable
materials, or as redemption centers where cash is paid for the more valuable
materials such as aluminum or corrugated cardboard.
Table 2-1 shows communities with solid waste recovery activities. Twenty have
city wide recycling pickup services. There are several examples of leaf
composting and office paper recycling programs currently in the region. Leaf
composting projects include drop-off locations and curb -side pickup. They are
generally operated as a free public service. Several commercial and govern-
mental offices recycle office paper.
10
Table 1.1
EXISTING SOLID WASTE RECOVERY ACTIVITIES IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1
Anoka County Carver County
Dakota County
Hennepin County
Ramsey County
Scott County
Washington County
Yard Waste
Coon Rapids Chanhassen
Hastings
Bloomington
Arden Hills
Forest Lake
Composting
Chaska
Inver Grove Heights
Brooklyn Park
Maplewood
Grant Twp.
U of M Arboretum
Champlin
Mounds View
Woodbury
Victoria
Eden Prairie
Roseville
Waconia
Hopkins
Shorevi erg
Maple Grove
St. Paul
Minneapolis
White Bear Lake
Robbinsdale
White Bear TMP.
St. Anthony
St. Louis Park
Curbside
Waconia
Excelsijr
Falcon Heights
Belle Plaine
Recycling
Hopkins
Lauderdale
Jordan
Pickup
Minneapol4s
Mani ewood
New Prague
Richfield
New Brighton
Savage
St. Anthony
North St. Paul
Shakopee
St. Louis Park
Roseville
St. Anthpuny
St. Paul
Mixed NSW Savage
Energy
Recovery
'This table does not include recyclables drop-off sites which can be found listed in the Metropolitan Council Recycle It! directory or office
paper recovery programs.
ZRawsey County operates five leaf congosting sites in St. Paul.
;Hennepin County and Minneapolis cooperatively operate four leaf cowpostin9 sites in Minneapolis.
ePllot progress Prot yet city-wide.
$In addition to curbside recycling pickup servicz in it. Paul. Ramsey Cmmty is planninq a (,,'.y Pe-yr 111, rente• ,P,oress�ng facilitvi
the city with grant/loan fundinq awarded by the Ha:tv Management Buard.
There is only one municipal solid waste energy recovery plant in the region, at
the Richard's Asphalt Refining Company in Savage. The plant processe> about 50
tons of municipal waste daily.
SPECIAL WASTE
Tree wastes, ash, tires, demolition debris and a number of other materials
handled separately from the mixed municipal solid waste stream are classed as
special wastes. Some special wastes, such as demolition debris, are land -
filled. A number of smaller land disposal facilities in the region are per-
mitted by state and local agencies to accept special wastes. They are used by
specific industrial and commercial waste sources and generally are not open to
the public. They are not permitted to receive mixed municipal solid waste.
A number of businesses and institutions operate small-scale incinerators that
handle combustible special wastes. Examples include hospitals, laboratories
and manufacturing companies. Generally only a few of these facilities recover
energy or materials.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The current trend toward tailoring management practices and regulation to the
characteristics of the waste itself is fairly recent. Fifteen to 20 years ago,
most waste was taken to unregulated open burning dumps. Little, if any, segre-
gation of special wastes, hazardous wastes or solid wastes was practiced. In
1970 there were 60 dumps operating within the Metropolitan Area, most located
on floodplains, in swamps and in gravel pits.
The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and state action in 1970
required closure or upgrading of dumps. The Council's 1971 solid waste manage-
ment plan u ged the shift to landfilling within the Metropolitan Area. Subse-
quently, many of the dumps were closed. A handful of new landfills ware devel-
oped, but most of the landfills which have operated in the region since the
early 1970s were upgraded from open burning dumps. Rules of the MPCA were
improved in 1973 to prohibit disposal of hazardous waste in sanitary
landfills.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was also the watershed in a growing
federal, state and regional policy orientation toward development of alterna-
tives to land disposal. Since the mid-1970s, regional policy has incorporated
a preference for waste reduction, source separation and waste processing as
illustrated on Figure 2-1. Nonetheless, landfilling was perceived as a rou-
tinely acceptable, if less desirable, waste management option.
The Metropolitan Council completed a feasibility study for a regional system of
resource recovery facilities and transfer stations in 1974. In the following
years there were four significant resource recovery proposals, three in St.
Paul and one in Minneapolis. All failed to develop. Major impediments
included local opposition, high cost in comparison to landfilling, difficulty
in securing waste flow control and technical viability, among other factors.
By the late 1970s, no substantial progress had been made to expand recycling
activities. High-technology resource recove-y had not materialized. Efforts
by several counties to site landfills had failed. A joint committee of the
Minnesota Legislature assessed the problem for more than two years. Their
recommendations resulted in enactment of the Waste Management Act.
12
Figure 2-1.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DECISION MODEL
D. atlrltr f M Iona . It.
1M
WASTE REDUCTION I t1DNMef I. "....I.
.p..t II pI'd Mate yi
Dnovul c me .M pl lullon
°N4D pat.Ntf [eOptl Dn
1N
{MI°)..It. IKMIMIf I.
SOURCE SEPARATION f.D.r.II, rM.., °MID. Mr.M
as 1.1
III= .1M
WASTE PROCESSING I k°i0r„.,°e1.,tt"'°[""";
Mf.° flt0°flr: DIW
•il. —f —� Y•[em MLyY .M. r
pnv tMl Mu`a01.[D ,yrM[Nttelli
III
RESIDUALS cl.Iwte ..IID".I,
MANAGEMENT
W.::1In-=1 YMt•.
M,D .M1
13
The act incorporates the familiar policies of reduction in waste generation and
separation and recovery of materials and energy. It mandates coordination of
solid waste management among political subdivisions and sets the objective of
orderly, deliberate development and financial security of waste facilities.
Subsequent amendments have further defined the legislative directive, explic-
itly specifying that planning for solid waste management must require the most
feasible and prudent reduction in both the need for and the practice of land
disposal of mixed municipal solid waste.
IF CURRENT PRACTICES CONTINUE
FUTURE LAND DISPOSAL NEEDS
Land disposal has been the primary method of managing the reaion's mixed munici-
pal solid waste for a number of years. Figure 2-2 shows the receiving rates
from 1972 through 1983, about a 39 percent increase over the 12-year period.
The reported receiving rates have not been constant over this period. Some
leveling and reduction occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These
changes are believed to reflect response to economic difficulties the region
experienced that resulted in less waste generation. Other factors that could
affect these receiving rates are inconsistent reporting methods and hauling
waste into or out of the Metropolitan Area.
If current practices continue through the year 2000 (reliance on landfills and
no increase in waste reduction and resource recovery), about 34 million tons of
waste will have to be landfilled (see Table 2-2). The region's operating
landfills have enough capacity to dispose of about 12 million tons of waste
material or 15,000 acre-feet of landfill space (see Table 2-3). The remaining
18 million tons would have to be disposed of in new land disposal facilities.
About 23,000 acre-feet of new disposal capacity would be needed, possibly
requiring development of more than 15 new landfills. Some would have to be
operating before the end of the aecade.
CONSEQUENCES
Land Use
During the process of identifying potential new landfill sites, citizens and
public officials repeatedly voiced their concerns over the impact landfills
could have on land use. Neighboring properties could be adversely affected,
property value lessened, tax base damaged. Difficulties in identifying pro-
ductive end uses for landfills would disrupt local development and land use
plans.
Most potential sites are located in outlying parts of the Metropolitan Area,
many on prime agricultural land. Taking such sites out of production poses a
serious conflict with longstanding regional policy fostering preservation of
agricultural lands.
Public Health and Environmental Hazards
The health and environmental consequences of land disposal of waste have been
increasingly documented in recent years. Damages can occur in the form of sur-
face and groundwater contamination, air pollutant emissions, fires, explosions,
food chain contamination, noise and odors.
14
Figure 2-2.
REPORTED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RECEIVING RATES
IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
e2,000
00.000
S
i
66,000
~ x
�
66.000
I
YV
54.000
6
64A00
50.000
Sovice: LaMllll operators' reports on Ilk at
tM Mlnnesols Pulkllon Control Agency.
1912 78 74 75 76 77 76 79 W 6t 62 ee ss
Year
Table 2-2
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE GENERATION
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1985-2000
(in thousands of tons)
Cumulative
County
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991-1995
1996-2000
1985-2000
Anoka
160
164
167
170
173
179
942
1,016
2,971
Carver
27
27
28
29
30
32
176
203
552
Dakota
177
183
189
194
199
205
1,135
1,296
3,578
Hennepin
1,025
1,032
1,038
1,044
1,050
1,059
5,394
5,574
17,216
Ramsey
480
481
4F1
482
483
486
2,429
2,445
7,767
a Scott
37
38
39
40
40
42
224
242
702
Washington
85
87
90
93
95
99
536
587
1,672
Metropolitan Area
1,991
2,011
2,032
2,052
2,072
2,101
10,836
11,361
34,456
Note: Totals may not equal sums of each line due to rounding. Estimates based on the following genera-
tion rates: urban -residential =2.75 pounds per person per day; rural -residential =2.00 pounds per person
per day; commercial - 3.21 pounds per employee per day; and industrial = 7.92 pounds per employee per day.
Table 2- 3
SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL SYSTEM,TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA1
Sanitary Landfill
Anoka County
Anoka Municipal
Dakota County
Burnsville
Dakhue
Freeway
Pine Bend
Hennepin County
Flying Cloud
Woodlake
Scott County
Louisville
Metropolitan Area Totals
Permitted
Remaining Capacity
Estimated
Capacity
as of January 1984
1984 Use Rate
Approximate
(acre-feet )2
_(acre-feet)
(acre-feet)
Closure Date
2,259
460
420
End 1986
8,121
2,240
80
Mid-1990s
482
70
50
1987
1,962
190
50
1986
9,963
9,370
440
Mid-1990s
3,109
640
440
1985
2,350
920
70
Mid-1990s
2,296
1,210
160
Mid-1990s
30,542
15,100
1,740
1991-1993
'Based on information from MPCA, landfill operators, metropolitan counties and Metropolitan
Council,
2Includes expansions approved since 1980 for Burnsville, Pine Bend, Woodlake and Louisville.
Does not include any currently proposed expansions.
Ail of the landfills that have operated in the Metropolitan Area since 1970
are contributing to environmental or potential health problems. Incidents
include contamination of surface water, methane gas migration, and nuisances
such as litter, noise and odor. Groundwater contamination has been detected at
all sites, with varying degrees of severity.
Groundwater contamination is of considerable concern. Two thirds of the
region's water consumption is dependent on groundwater supplies. Existing
landfills were designed in the early 19705 and do not use state-of-the-art
environmental control technologies or practices. Existing and closed landfills
are believed to generate currently over 60 million gallons of leachate, water,
that has been contaminated by flowing through the waste. Although ne. land-
fills would incorporate liners and leachate collection systems, recent studies
indicate that even well designed systems allow at least 15 percent of leachate
to escape. Groundwater contamination from leachate migration is difficult to
detect, extremely difficult to control or correct and may continue for decades
after facility closure.
Public Costs
The costs of development of a system of new landfills could be staggering.
Average cost per landfill would be $20 to $30 million, with some facilities
costing as much as $50 million. Loss of tax base is a potential indirect cost.
Added costs can result if groundwater contamination requires cleanup. Costs of
several million dollars for cleanup of a facility and surrounding environment
are not unusual.
It is estimated that approximately 7.5 million tons of recyclable materials
will be generated over the next 16 years. Continuation of landfilling would
waste the value of these materials and potential revenues derived from them.
The energy value of mixed municipal waste would also be lost. As a corollary,
current practices dictate ongoing consumption of raw materials and fuels that
could be replaced through recycling and resource recovery, with savings in
production costs, processing and environmental impacts of raw material use.
PART 3: REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT
PURPOSE
The purpose of the regional strategy is to describe the region's future waste
management system. It defines what approaches the system will use to deal
effectively with solid waste, including the role of waste reduction, source
separation, processing to recover energy and materials, and land disposal.
Waste reduction involves methods to cut back the amount of waste generated in
the first place. Source separation involves sorting waste where it is gener-
ated so reusable materials can be marketed or processed more readily. Process-
ing for energy or materials recovery consists of methods that transform mate-
rials into a usable, marketable product or burn them for heat energy. Land
disposal is the practice of depositing waste in landfills. These approaches
will play different roles in the regional strategy, but all will be necessary
to a greater or lesser degree to manage the region's solid waste properly,
effectively and comprehensively.
The regional strategy is based on a number of important considerations. First,
it is based on a goal of minimizing environmental health hazards, conserving
natural resources and energy, and minimizing total costs.
The regional strategy is also intended to reduce the region's reliance on land
disposal by maximizing the recovery of energy and materials from solid waste
and reducing wastes at the source as much as possible. Thus, under the
regional strategy, land disposal is considered a waste management practice of
last resort.
The region's waste management system should reflect all the known costs of
proper waste management and not pass on costs to future generations. The exist-
ing system, however, which is based almost entirely on land disposal does not
incorporate potential future costs of controlling environmental problems. Nor
does it reflect the benefits from recycling reusable materials or the avoided
costs of taking less waste to landfills. In short, the land disposal system
operates at artificially low costs, giving it an unfair advantage over most
waste reduction and resource recovery programs. Consequently, the fact that
alternative approaches such as waste reduction and resource recovery now cost
more than land disposal should not by itself exclude these alternatives from
the regional strategy. Economics is one factor to consider, along with others,
in selecting waste management approaches.
Another important consideration is that the waste management system should pro-
vide recovery and disposal capacity to meet short- and long-term needs. It
should be consistent with public health and environmental protection stan-
dards. And it :should provide for equitable and efficient allocation of costs
to those who generate waste, as well as conservation of materials and energy
whenever possible.
ALTERNATIVES AND PRIORITIES
OVERVIEW
Waste reduction and source separation are often referred to as low -technology
approaches because they usually require only a small capital investment, have
the fleyibility to respond to change and involve the participation of those who
generate waste.
10
The options available through use of centralized processing facilities include
materials recovery, waste combustion and co -composting (the composting of mixed
waste with a material that is high in nitrogen such as sewage sludge). Central-
ized processing is generally referred to as a high-technology approach, because
compared with other methods, it uses mcre expensive equipment and facilities;
its operating costs are typically higher; it ^equires long-term financing and
commitments for waste supply, and is less f;exible to convert to other technol-
ogies. The major advantage of the approach, though, is the ability to reliably
process large quantities of waste in a • -t period of time.
The objectives of processing solid w, ,re to reduce the waste volume, con-
vert the waste to usable form or separ.Le materials that can be reused. For
example, residential wastes may be processed to recover materials and energy
that can be sold. The residual, often grit or ash, requires only a fraction of
the disposal capacity that the original waste woul1 have required. In some
cases, residuals also have potential for recycling or reuse, for example, as
structural fill materials.
There are certain risks in establishing facilities to process and recover secon-
dary materials and energy from solid wastes. Facilities requiring large invest-
ment carry a sizable economic risk, particularly if recoverable commodities
enter un, lictable markets. The risk is not so great for low -capital alterna-
tives. lne foremost risks are associated with the following: 1) commitments
from markets for recovered materials or energy; 2) commitments of sufficient
solid waste supplies; 3) reliability of the processing equipment and tech-
niques; and 4) financial risks to investors.
WASTE REDUCTION
Alternatives
Reducing the amount of waste can reduce costs of making products, public spend-
ing for waste management, the rate of resource consumption and the potential
for adverse environmental impacts.
There are many ways of reducing waste. Economic incentives have prompted some
area manufacturers to initiate programs to minimize energy and material require-
ments and waste management problems. Consumer preferences for less packaging,
smaller a—' more economical automobiles, recycled or recyclable materials and
more durable goods are indicative of a more cost-co,iscious public.
Examples of other waste reduction actions include mulching and composting resi-
dential yard and garden wastes such as grass clippings and leaves where they
are generated. Yard -wastes that can be composted include leaves, grass clip-
pings and other organic waste from lawn and garden maintenance. Composting
transforms these materials into a usable soil amendment product through con-
trolled biological degradation.
Waste reduction programs within government establishing policies for buying and
using products could reduce total solid waste by about one percent and finan-
cially benefit both government and industry. Policies requiring governments to
purchase products that contain recycled materials also help to reduce landfill-
ing and provide markets for secondary materials.
Generally, the cost of a product does not reflect what the public must pay for
collection and disposal of solid waste generated by the product. One technique
is to institute a charge on the product to be paid by the user for the costs of
waste disposal.
Although use of product charges could reduce waste by an estimated two to three
percent it is doubtful whether a product charge could be applied on a state
level because of a potential conflict with interstate commerce.
Bans on the production of certain products or materials may be used to control
products that present substantial environmental or public health risks. Gener-
ally they can be applied only if there are alternative materials and products.
Bans are somewhat limited, and require either legislative action or regulatory
agency resolution to be implemented properly.
Priorities
It is difficult to determine how much of the region's waste could be diverted
from landfilling through waste reduction methods, but they would probably
account for only a few percentage points. Several industries, public institu-
tions and other organizations are already carrying out waste reduction activi-
ties to reduce costs. However, many manufacturing .rocesses cannot produce
completely recyclable or reusable products, and waste generators frequently do
not know about opportunities for reducing waste at the source.
Waste reduction also has major institutional barriers to overcome. A full-
scale effort requires new federal or state legislation aimed at reducing waste
produced by specific industries. Such legislation generally takes years to
pass, and only after the full economic consequences and benefits are known.
For these reasons, many waste reduction efforts are beyond the capabilities of
local governmental units to implement.
It is likely, however, that waste reduction efforts will expand somewhat with-
out legislation or major advances in technology. Waste reduction will occur if
1) the opportunities for conservation are recognized and 2) there are economic
incentives to do so.
To promote such efforts, the regional strategy emphasizes reduction methods
that are administratively simple to implement. Such programs include consumer
education and awareness, office paper reuse, yard -waste mulching and govern-
mental purchasing practices favoring reduction. Particular focus should be on
awareness and education programs that emphasize the benefits of waste
reduction.
The metropolitan counties are currently studying the composition and sources of
commercial and industrial solid waste. The studies may help identify further
opportunities for waste reduction. In addition, reduction measures requiring
new legislation should be evaluated as part of a long-range effort. For the
foreseeable future, however, waste reduction will play a limited role in
dealing with the region"s wastes.
21
SOURCE SEPARATION
Alternatives
Source separation means that a generator sets aside waste materials that can be
recycled. Separation is followed by processing and transporting the recyclable
materials to manufacturers for reuse. Source separation is feasible for both
municipal and industrial solid waste but to be successful, depends largely on
the income derived from sales of recovered resources. Markets for recovered
materials are subject to wide swings in prices that can affect decisions to
recover or dispose of materials. Source separation relies heavily on the
ongoing participation of the individual generators of waste.
Municipal solid waste is generated by households and commercial and business
establishments. This category does not include industrial -process wastes, agri-
cultural wastes, construction and demolition wastes, mining wastes and sludges
from pollution control and water treatment processes.
Municipal solid wastes that can be separated are glass, metal, paper and yard
waste. There are secondary materials markets in the region for glass, metal
and paper. Yard waste may be separated and sent to composting sites where
decomposed material may be used as a soil amendment. The small quantities of
hazardous materials normally found in residential solid waste, such as aero-
sols, paint cans and cleaning fluids can be separated by the household. Fed-
eral and state efforts are being directed toward developing programs to deal
with household hazardous materials.
Most existing source separation programs for municipal solid waste are volun-
tary and require citizen support. Mandatory source separation programs, which
would require local communities to adopt separation ordinances, would receive
significantly higher participation and recovery rates. Though a mandatory pro-
gram would be difficult to enforce, many people would cooperate voluntarily
because it is the law.
A recent survey of public attitudes toward source separation in the region con-
cluded that many of the region's residents indicated they would participate in
source -separation programs if curb -side pickup were to be offered either for
free or at a small monthly charge.
Office waste is being effectively separated to some degree now. Programs have
been started at private companies and at state gover :rental agencies to recover
salvageable white paper.
Industrial waste is often more homogeneous and less susceptible to changes in
volume and composition than residential and commercial solid waste. Such waste
often has an excellent potential for serving raw material needs.
Many types of industrial wastes, however, are classified as hazardous wastes,
to be managed in accordance with state and federal requirements and not to be
mixed with solid waste.
One technique to encourage source separation is to impose a deposit, a small
extra charge to the consumer to encourage product reuse. The deposit is
refunded when the reusable portion of the product is returned. State law would
be required to implement mandatory deposit programs in Minnesota.
22
Priorities
Historically, almost all recovery has taken place by hand -separating the wastes
where they are generated (such as households and offices), then transpc-ting
and selling the recovered materials. Technologically, this process is rela-
tively simple and has a good potential for dealing with a substantial percent-
age of the region's waste.
The main obstacles to implementing source separation have been economic. Separ-
ation programs simply have not been able to compete with land disposal with its
artificially low costs. Moreover, source separation programs have always
depended on the voluntary participation of waste generators, and any cost sav-
ings have usually not been large enough to encourage most generators to partici-
pate. In addition, there has often been a lack of coordination among different
rcycling efforts and sometimes unreliable service.
Three types of waste are particularly suited for aggressive source separation
region -wide. They are 1) yard wastes such as leaves generated mainly by house-
holds and some businesses and institutions; 2) small quantities of hazardous
substances discarded by households and commercial and industrial firms exempted
under federal and state hazardous waste disposal regulations; and 3) recycl-
ables, such as paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, metal, and aluminum, pro-
duced by households, and commercial and industrial firms. The benefits of
separating these waste materials at the source are many: providing a cleaner,
higher -quality reusable product, reducing the potential for damage to process-
ing equipment and reducing the cost of disposal at facilities receiving mixed
waste.
Immediate priority should go to separating yard waste that can be composted and
recyclable materials from mixed municipal waste. Indications are that source
separation programs could be available throughout most of the region within two
to three years. Within five years, enough households and businesses could be
participating in waste separation programs to achieve a very substantial reduc-
tion in wastes otherwise destined for landfills.
Some wastes may be recovered now or could be reused. However, they should not
have the same priority for developing source separation services as recycl-
ables. Examples include tires, plastics, and demolition and construction
debris. Other wastes can contaminate products, damage processing equipment or
present special public health and safety problems. As a result, they should be
handled and treated separately. These include such items as hazardous sub-
stances from households and small commercial or industrial firms. Region -wide
recovery services for these components will take longer to implement, perhaps
until 1990.
By 1990, as much as 20 percent of the total solid waste generated annually
could be separated and recovered under a full-scale region -wide effort. Reach-
ing this level, however, requires using several measures phased in at different
times. Source separation services for recyclables and yard waste for compost-
ing must be available region -wide by 1987, and full-scale participation by
waste generators must be mandatory by 1988. Source separation services for spe-
cial wastes and hazardous substances should be available region -wide by 1990,
although services for particular wastes may be provided earlier. All yard
waste materials and recyclables must be banned from land disposal after 1990.
:' 3
CENTRALIZED MATERIALS RECOVERY
Alternatives
The technology of recovering materials at centralized processing facilites is
well established. Shredding, magnetic separation of metals, air classification
(using a blast of air to separate materials according to their weight) and
similar techniques have been successfully used for a number of years. This
technology can extract recyclable materials, process recyclables previously
separated at the source and reduce the total volume of waste. It can also be
adapted to produce refuse -derived fuel (RDF) for combustion or supplemental
material for co -composting.
Materials recovery has generally been considered only a process to be carried
out before waste combustion. Using it only to extract recyclables and/or
reduce the volume of waste has never received much attention, largely because
the savings were never comparable to its costs. Presently, very little is
being done to reduce waste volumes some waste compaction takes place at a few
of the region's transfer stations.
Priorities
Materials recovery at centralized facilities has good possibilities in the
Metropolitan Area, particularly if the technology is used with other processing
methods. As previously mentioned, similar equipment can be used to accomplish
a number of purposes. Centralized materials recovery can also serve as a
backup if source -separation approaches do not meet anticipated objectives.
The regional strategy must be able to respond to varying market needs for
recovered materials, while providing continuous processing services and trans-
porting waste efficiently throughout the region. The materials recovery
approach can be a final step in the recovery process, or serve as an important
intermediate step between source separation activities and final processing
destinations. Centrally located, intermediate facilities can improve overall
waste service flexibility and efficiency. Source -separated materials can be
processed at such facilities or waste can be simply transferred and/or pro-
cessed and sent to other locations.
WASTE COMBUSTION
Alternatives
Energy can be recovered from municipal solid waste. Waste can be either burned
in a furnace with heat recovery facilities or processed to make it a useful
fuel. Proven energy recovery technologies inclL a waterwall incineration and
RDr. Pyrolysis systems, alcohol production systems and anaerobic digestion
systems are in the research and development stages.
The main energy products that can be recovered from municipal solid waste are
solid fuel, steam and electricity. Revenues from disposal fees and the sale of
fuel and energy can defray the costs of energy recovery facilities. Generally,
the price for solid waste energy products competes with the price of energy
products derived from fossil fuels. Whether the revenue and fees received have
to compete with alternative methods of waste disposal is a question that must
be decided in each instance.
Waste combustion technologies have been commercially available for some time
now. The mass -burn and RDF technologies, in particular, are increasingly being
used in this country. The mass -burn technology has over 30 years of advance-
ment, mainly in Europe. Although newer, the RDF technology is receiving
greater attention because of its flexibility and potentially lower costs.
Therefore, technological factors should not impede the development of combus-
tion facilities in the Metropolitan Area.
Economic and public risk considerations have been the major reasons for the
slow development of combustion facilities in the region. Only one small-scale
facility, in Savage is currently in operation. Proposed large-scale projects
have never been able to compete with the region's low-cost land disposal sys-
tem. Such projects have always required large capital investments and long-
term public commitments of waste supplies. Finally, there were always linger-
ing questions whether better alternatives were available. However, alternative
Froposals have never proven capable of handling the large quantities of waste
that combustion facilities can.
Priorities
Waste combustion must play a key role in the region"s future waste management
system. It could recover as much as 50 percent of the total solid waste gener-
ated annually. Priority must go to developing a system of major combustion
facilities that will be operational by 1990. Large-scale facilities need to
be built each capable of handling as much as 500 or more tons per day of mixed
municipal waste. In general, large-scale facilities provide the potential for
greater control of air emissions because they have higher combustion efficien-
cies. These facilities will not be competitive in the short-term; therefore,
they will require assurances of an adequate waste supply. The RDF technology
is more adaptable to the regional strategy because of its flexibility.
CENTRALIZED COMPOSTING AND CO -COMPOSTING
Alternatives
Another form of centralized resource recovery is composting or co -composting of
mixed solid wastes with materials high in nitrogen. Similar to backyard com-
posting of yard waste, large composting facilities rely on the biological pro-
cesses of microorganisms to break down the organic fraction of processed
municipal solid wastes. Composting facilities process the waste, using shred-
ding and mechanical separation techniques similar to energy recovery facili-
ties. The viability of composting plants depends on the markets for the final
product. Centralized composting facility technologies include open "windrow"
systems (that is, piles of organic refuse that are turned using large road
machinery) and enclosed systems where the oxygen and temperature levels are
controlled. These types of resource recovery systems are more common in Europe
than in the United States. Centralized composting is, however, increasingly
being used in this country.
Until recently, the co -compost technology has received little attention in the
region. Recent research by the Council indicates that the technology offers a
number of opportunities, and that it should be a part of the regional strategy.
Co -composting technology is readily available and applicable to the region.
The technology includes use of windrows and enclosed vessels. Both methods
have been successfully used for years particularly in Europe.
75
One advantage of co -composting is that it can readily be used in conjunction
with othe- processing methods, such as combustion and materials recovery. Simi-
lar equipment can be used in these processing methods, and the systems can be
operated in a coordinated way to respond to seasonal fluctuations in market
demand and waste supply volumes. Moreover, the co -composting process can
respond fairly easily to market demand for different types and quantities of co -
compost product.
Indications are that a number of markets exist in the region to use co -compost
products. Some question remains, however, regarding the competitiveness of the
product with similar products currently being used. The University of Minne-
sota, in cooperation with the Council, has begun a research and development pro-
ject to determine the marketability of co -compost in the Metropolitan Area.
The net effect of including co -composting in the regional strategy is to
increase flexibility and lessen even further the amount of residuals requiring
land disposal. The question about the marketability of compost should not by
itself discount co -composting as an important part of the region's future waste
management system. However, public subsidies may be required until a long-term
market demand is developed.
LAND DISPOSAL
Alternatives
As a method of waste management, land disposal is a last resort. Waste reduc-
tion and resource recovery are preferable methods, but even with land disposal
there are factors to consider to minimize environmental and land use problems.
Land disposal has occurred in a range of environments, from uncontrolled, pol-
luting, unaesthetic open burning dumps, to landfills, that, when properly
designed and operated, have less chance of causing serious pollution and nui-
sance problems. The critical question regarding any land disposal facility is
to what extent the waste material's constituents can escape into the soil and
groundwater and adversely affect the surrounding environment and water sup-
plies. New land disposal facilities should be located and modern technology
incorporated into their design to reduce public health and environmental
risks. Another important consideration is controlling the type of waste going
into a land disposal facility. compliance with increasingly rigorous and
detailed standards for environmental protection will increase the cost of land
disposal.
Once the land disposal facilities are filled, return to a productive land use
is limited. Some completed land disposal facilities can be used for recrea-
tional purposes, or for light intensity commercial and industrial uses. In
some cases, methane gas can be recovered for use from solid waste land disposal
facilities during operation and after closure.
Priorities
Waste reduction and resource recovery are estimated to reduce significantly the
need for land disposal but will not eliminate it entirely. Landfills for
municipal solid waste will be necessary on a short-term basis while reduction
and recovery systems are developing. They will also be necessary for waste
that cannot be processed and for the residue from recovery operations. How-
ever, their use should be kept to an absolute minimum.
2f.
Technology and Operations
Pollution control techniques installed as landfills, such as liners instalie-
under the site and systems to collect leachate and recover methane gas are
increasingly used at disposal facilities throughout the country. However,
because they have not been used extensively, or for a long period of time, it
is difficult to predict whether they will perform adequc:ely in all instances.
It is best to assume that some failure will eventually occur. As a result,
other factors must he considered to keep risks to a minimum.
The location of disposal facilities is particularly important. Locations with
favorable geologic and physical features can greatly reduce the chances of
adverse impacts and allow more time to correct potential problems. Future
decisions about land disposal must give as much consideration to location of
landfills as pollution control systems and the landfill site. There must be a
shift away from the current philosophy that dilution of pollutants is an
acceptable means of environmental protection.
Another factor is the type of waste materials that landfills accept. To date,
there has been little effort to control the types of waste deposited in land-
fills except for state prohibitions cn hazardous wastes in 1973 and discarded
tires effective in 1985. What the region requires, however, is a ban on the
land disposal of "unprocessed" municipal waste after 1990. Unprocessed munic-
ipal waste includes materials that could be recycled, but have not been
removed, and wastes that have not been stabilized by incineration or other
processing methods. The technology is available to achieve a total ban, and it
is economically possible to have such services region -wide after 1990. Such a
ban would allow only residuals from processing and recycling to go to landfills.
There are several benefits of banning "unprocessed" waste from landfills. The
residuals require significantly less land disposal space. Existing land dis-
posal capacity would be available for a longer time period, and the number of
new sites needed would be considerably less. In addition, the more homogene-
ous, stabilized character of the residuals can lower the potential for adverse
health and environmental impacts. The organic content of residuals is minimal,
virtually eliminating the potential for generating methane gas and narrowing
the range of potential contaminants that might seep off the site. Nuisance
impacts, such as odor, noise, dust, litter and traffic, would also be less.
Landfills comprised of residuals could mean the landfill site, once closed,
could be converted to many more uses. Finally, the ban, in itself, may stimu-
late the development of industry to process and utilize the waste materials.
Effect on Developing Alternatives to Land Disposal
How much capacity is available in landfills can adversely affect the develop-
ment of reduction and recovery alternatives. Historically, reduction and
recovery alternatives have had difficulty competing against the region"s low-
cost land disposal system. It is anticipated that this situation will even-
tually change with the implementation of better -designed landfills, which will
be more expensive to build and operate.
The major problem, however, is that it will take several years to phase in a
new land disposal system. Current estimates show that without any changes in
waste management, about seven to nine years of capacity remain available in the
existing disposal system. The existing system could be available for a longer
27
period of time, if major reduction and recovery projects are implemented accord-
ing to planned time schedules. This extended period of use will further delay
the time when better -designed, more expensive landfills are needed and the
waste management system as a whole operates more competitively. As a result,
land disposal capacity will have to be carefully controlled if the regional
strategy is to be successfully implemented.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL STRATEGY
Solid waste management requires responsive public decision -making. The state
Waste Management Act mandates a decision -making process for solid waste man-
agement in the Metropolitan Area that involves several levels of government.
The major planning and coordinating functions are given to the Council, and the
counties have primary implementation responsibilities. The state, cities and
towns have various regulatory and implementation authorities. However, new
institutional relationships may be necessary, along with additional len:slative
authority, to successfully implement the regional strategy.
SUBREGIONAL SERVICE AREAS
The regional strategy lays out an approach that calls for a regional system of
processing and source separation activities to be phased in over the next five
years. Only the residuals from these activities could go to land disposal
facilities after 1990. A concept of centralized management and coordination of
the waste, its components and final destination is necessary to implement the
regional system (see Figure 3-1). The majority of the waste would most likely
go to centralized locations after source reduction and separation. Here the
waste would be processed and/or sent to other processing locations, and the
remaining residuals would go to land disposal facilities.
Cooperative arrangements among the counties, will be necessary if the region -
wide approach is to succeed. Present patterns of waste management (collection,
transportation and disposal), and the potential locations for processing facili-
ties and final product markets, are not easily adaptable to service areas based
solely on the jurisdictional boundaries of individual counties. There are indi-
cations that some of the major processing projects currently being developed
may not have sufficient waste supplies to expand in the future because of these
factors. If this is the case, solid waste recovery may not reach its fullest
potential. What is needed is a subregional approach that involves groups of
counties.
Ramsey and Washington Counties have joined together to develop and implement a
major centralized processing facility and ancillary services. The subregional
approach, in this instance, has worked well in project development, financing
and waste supply assurance.
The following subregional service area recommended based on waste supply con-
centrations, geographical proximity of the counties to one another and the
potential locations for processing activities. Solid waste planning, facility
development, financing and operations could be facilitated by the two- or three -
county subregional approach.
1. Anoka and Hennepin Counties;
2. Dakota and Hennepin Counties;
7P
Figure 3-1.
REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SOURCE REDUCTION
Residential Commercial Industrial
WASTE SEGREGATION
Yard and Hazardous Wastes, Recyclable*, etc.
v
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING/ LOW
TRANSFER STATIONS TECHNOLOGY
I
CO -COMPOSTING REFUSE -DERIVED MASS Recycling
FUEL BURN
RESIDUALS ABATEMENT
LANDFILLING OF PROCESSED WASTE
3. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties; and
4. Carver and Scott Counties.
Source separation's low -capital investment requirements and generator -based
approach make it particularly suited for local governments to implement.
Source separation 's also very adaptable to subregional approach. Although
only a few Metropo,Lan Area communities are currently implementing comprehen-
sive programs, new financing mechanisms provided by the Waste Management Act
now make possible greater local involvement. Areas where cities and towns must
direct their efforts include 1) directly providing separation services or pro-
viding financial aid and other assistance to privately operated projects; 2)
increasing public education and awareness; and 3) monitoring pe•formance of the
activities.
Reaching maximum source separation levels, however, cannot be accomplis by
local efforts alone. Both the Council and counties will not only have to pro-
vide local assistance, but also deal with the broader issues that transcend
local jurisdictions. Four areas deserve particular attention: 1) expanding mar-
kets to take recyclables; 2) organizing waste collection services that facili-
tate separation; 3) developing intermediate processing facilities to take sepa-
rated materials (see discussion under high-technology approaches); and 4) com-
plementing local public education and awareness programs. State agency assist-
ance will also be necessary.
WASTE COLLE^TION SERVICES
The regional strategy depends on efficient solid waste collection services.
Most of the waste is collected in the Metropolitan Area under an "open arrange-
mer " where the collector contracts directly with tho,e who generate the
was. . This arrangement, however, has resulted in waste collection services
that in many areas of the region are inefficient. Frequently, for example,
there are several waste collectors collecting from homes along the same
s•reets, perhaps even on the same day. As a result, waste collectors have to
treater distances between stops, which increases their fuel and labor
.or the community, it means more truck traffic, street maintenance,
Ad vehicle emissions and safety problems.
Th., open arrangement has also been a hindrance to recycling and resource
recovery. Under the existing system, the waste collector, not the recycler or
resident, benefits from recycling. For each ton of material removed from the
waste stream, the waste collector is rewarded by collecting, transporting and
disposing of one less ton of waste. If the benefit of recovery, in this case
avoided costs, is not distributed equitably throughout the system, there is no
significant financial native to exnand existing recycling programs.
Under an organized system, the aitcrnative to the open arrangement, the local
government or residential association could negotiate with collectors for waste
hauling on behalf of households, businesses and other generators of waste. Con-
tracts with the collectors can establish efficient routing systems and provide
for local recycling and other recovery services. An example that works well is
the Minneapolis program. Working with a consortium of waste collectors, the
city has been able to provide efficient collection services and curb -side
recycling city-wide.
30
Organized collection services could play a major role in implementing the
regional strategy. Organized collection is particularly adaptable to using sub -
regional service areas, and offers savings to the local community and waste
collector. The Council is currently evaluating organized collection, and will
complete a report in mid-1985.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
It is important that enough markets, or consumers, exist willing to take the
products from solid waste recovery programs, such as energy, compost, grass,
paper and residuals like ash. Without this demand, waste recovery has little
chance of succeeding. Although markets have always been a factor in past decis-
ions, there has never been a concerted effort to improve market conditions in
the region.
Markets can include industries, businesses, governmental units, groups of peo-
ple and individuals. Crucial to the success of the regional strategy is expand-
ing existing markets and developing new ones. Priority must be given to having
such a program in place in 1985. Markets will see this as a serious commitment
to changing waste management practices and an opportunity for investments.
Enacting an innovative program requires the cooperation of a number of govern-
mental agencies and the business community. Currently, some uncertainty exists
about specific roles in the region, and market development efforts are frag-
mented and frequently duplicative. A need for coordination is apparent, along
with setting up a carefully structured program.
The Council and the state Department of Energy and Economic Development appear
best suited to set up the market development program. Recent research by the
Council indicates that the following areas deserve particular attention 1) sta-
bilizing recyclable material supplies; 2) targeting specific markets for expan-
sion and development; 3) improving public education and technical assistance
capabilities; 4) reexamining the role of market subsidies; and 5) re-examining
the effect and role of state and local financial and regulatory devices.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION
Accomplishing the regional strategy depends on a high level of public under-
standing and participation. The public's willingness to accept new solutions
and pay somewhat higher costs for improved waste management will depend, to a
large extent, on educational and related efforts. Activities like waste reduc-
tion and source separation are particularly dependent on methods to persuade
public attitudes.
Several governmental bodies and private groups in the Metropolitan Area already
provide public education and participation activities. These organizations
include the Council, metropolitan counties, many cities and townships, Minne-
sota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Waste Management Board and private
entities, such as recycling firms and public interest groups. However, efforts
by these organizations are often fragmented, duplicate one another and do not
provide the service the public needs.
A program is needed that coordinates public education and participation. The
purpose of such programs would be to 1) change behavior of those who generate
waste through actual participation in waste reduction and resou--p recovery
programs; 2) increase public awarenes, about waste management; a..a 3) increase
citizen participation in important decisions on solid waste plans and projects.
31
Immediate priority should go to establishing such a coordinating program. The
low -technology approaches in particular, depend on the public's early awareness
and involvement if they are to be implemented as scheduled within the next few
years. It would not be practical to expect local units of government or pri-
vate businesses to set up the program, but more appropriately, the Council and
metropolitan counties must assume the responsibility.
Improving public education and participation will also depend on strong "grass
roots" activities. Environmental activist groups, churches, clubs, and similar
organizations are already carrying out some of these activities, but they will
have to become even more involved to gain the broad support necessary to make
changes in the waste management system through "grass roots" coalitions and
community organizing tactics. Assistance from government may be necessary to
help out these efforts.
POLICIES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
The following policies are intended to guide development of the region's
future solid waste management system.
1. Waste reduction and resource recovery are feasible, prudent alternatives
to land disposal of municipal solid waste. Economic considerations alone
shall not preclude implementation of the alternatives.
2. Processible mixed municipal solid waste shall be prohibited from land dis-
posal in the Metropolitan Area after 1990.
3. Metropolitan Area ,enerators of municipal solid waste are required after
1987 to separate identified recyclables and compostable yard waste
materials.
4. The public sector is responsible for developing a regional system of waste
processing and recycling services. The system should be comprised of cen-
tralized processing facilities, transfer stations and composting and
recycling services. The system should provide continuous. convenient and
reliable services to all residential and commercial waste generators in
the Metropolitan Area and centralized management and coordination of the
waste, its components and final destination.
5. The metropolitan counties are strongly encouraged to develop programs and
projects cooperatively within the following subregional service areas:
a. Dakota and Hennepin Counties;
b. Anoka and Hennepin Counties;
c. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties; and
d. Carver and Scott Counties.
6. Residential and commercial generate of small amounts of hazardous sub-
stances should separate these materidls from the remaining waste. The
metropolitan -,unties should provide collection and management services
for these mate,-,als by 1988.
32
7. A region -wide centrally coordinated public education and participation
program shall be established by 1986. All Metropolitan Area residential
and commercial waste generators shall be provided information on opportuni-
ties to participate in waste reduction and resource recovery programs.
R. A region -wide, centrally, coordinated resource recovery market development
program should be established by 1986.
9. The organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste is strongly encour-
aged in the Metropolitan Area.
10. Solid waste facilities should not be allowed to degrade ground- and
surface water resources beyond their natural quality. Technology alone
should not be deemed sufficient to protect ground- and surface waters.
The inherent suitability of locations for land disposal facilities will be
equally considered with technological factors.
11. The region's total operating capacity for land disposal should not exceed
the amount specified in the land disposal development schedule in this
guide.
9191
PART 4: SYSTEM PLAN
This system plan for solid waste management in the Metropolitan Area identifies
projects and activities necessary to meet waste management needs until the year
2000. The plan consists of three sections.
1. A development program for waste reduction and resource recovery describes
the facilities and activities that need to be implemented to carry out the
regional strategy. A development program schedule specifies levels of
reduction and recovery attainable as well as the timing and likely location
of projects to achieve these levels. This section also describes the
responsibilities of state, regional and local governments for implementing
and coordinating the development program.
2. A development program for land disposal identifies the landfill capacity
needed to handle waste that remains after reduction and recovery. An
implementation schedule specifies the number of landfill sites needed and
the timing of their development. Also described are methods of controlling
environmental risks and use of the land after closure.
3. A final section analyses the costs of implementing t..e development programs
for waste reduction and recovery and for land disposal. Also described are
methods of financing specific projects and activities.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND RESOURCE RECOVERY
This development program describes how the regional strategy is to be carried
out. The development schedule identifies the expected levels of waste reduc-
tion and resource recovery to be attained by each of the metropolitan counties
from 1985 to 2000. The development program identifies a variety of facilities
and programs that can be used to reach the waste reduction and resource
recovery levels. The program also identifies the public sector responsibili-
ties for implementation of the -, The counties and their cities and
townships are responsible for ning the methods that best fit their
individual needs to meet the oi,,eccives listed in Table 4-1.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
The schedule sets objectives for the levels of waste reduction and resource
recovery that must to attained in the region. The schedule appears in Table
4-1. The table sets specific levels of waste reduction and resource recovery
that must be attained annually by each of the counties (including source separ-
ation and centralized processing) from 1985 through 1990 and in five-year
increments thereafter through 2000. Ranges are given for some years for cen-
tralized processing because it is difficult to predict when a processing facil-
ity will begin operation and reach its designated capacity. However, the lower
end of the range is expected to be achieved. Centralized processing includes
transfer stations, waste processing, combustion and co -composting facilities.
The Council will monitor progress in meeting the objectives of the development
schedule through its various plan review and reporting mechanisms (see "Plan
Implementation," Part 5). The metropolitan counties have overall responsibil-
ity to design, develop and implement programs that reach waste reduction and
source separation objectives. Local communities are expected to work in
cooperation with the counties to attain the objectives.
34
Table 4-1
WASTE REDUCTION/RESOURCE RECOVERY DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
(Percent of Total Solid Waste Generated by County)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1991- 1996-
1990 1995 2000
ANOKA COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5
Source Separation 2 4 6 9 12 15 15 15
Centralized Processing 2 2 2 4-19 19-57 80 80 80
County Total -WTGM B-73 -W -W -W
CARVER COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5
Source Separation 2 4 6 8 11 13 13 13
Centralized Processing 0 0 0 0 0-29 82 82 82
County Total —T iT Tru -w -w -m
DAKOTA COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 4 5 5 5
Source Separation 2 4 6 9 11 15 15 15
Centralized Processing 2 2 2 4.14 14-57 80 80 80
County Total —S I5 25 iq 7g T�
HENNEPIN COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4
Source Separation 2 4 6 9 13 16 16 16
Centralized Processing 2 2 2 2-11 11-57 80 80 80
County Total i T6I33Y 27T3 T66 Tb� ZD6
RAMSEY COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4
Source Separation 3 6 9 11 15 19 19 19
Centralized Processing 1 1 5 5-57 67-72 77 77 77
County Total T -w T97U Nm -Tw -w -m
SCOTT COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Source Separation 2 4 6 8 11 14 14 14
Centralized Processing 18 18 18 18 18-28 83 83 83
County Total -2F —74'
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 5
Source Separation 2 4 6 8 12 16 16 16
Centralized Processing 19 19 19-25 25-57 67-72 79 79 79
County Total _72— -TF Frm !6-9 M-9 -or TF -m
METROPOLITAN AREA (Percent of Regional Total)
Waste Reduction 1 2 2 2 3 •4 4 4
Source Separation 2 4 6 9 13 16 16 16
Centralized Processing 2 2 4 25 57 80 80 80
Regional Total -3v --ff- -w -T6� iD0
35
WASTE REDUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION
Overview
Waste reduction and source separation are targeted towards specific types of
waste generators (such as residential households and commercial establish-
ments) and specific materials. Waste reduction and source separation are
strictly dependent on the participation of the waste generator.
Table 4-2 summarizes the projected participation rates used to estimate the
impact of waste reduction and source separation activities. The objectives
established in terms of tons (see Table 4-3) are dependent on these assumed
participation rates, which, together with assumptions about the composition of
solid waste, are applied to the county -by -county, residential and commercial
waste generation rates.
Table 4-2
PROJECTED PARTICIPATION RATES USED TO CALCULATE OBJECTIVES
FOR WASTE REDUCTION AND SOURCE SEPARATION
WASTE REDUCTION
(Mulching/backyard Composting)
Residential
Commercial
SOURCE SEPARATION
Yard Waste
Residential
Commercial
Recyclables
Residential
Commercial
Office Paper Recycling
Residential
Commercial
1988 1990 1988 1990
3D%
30%
Drop-off On -route
10% 15% 25%
10% 15% 25%
10% 15% 40%
10% 15% 40%
40%
60%
60%
30%
30%
70%
70%
70%
The Council will revise the generation rates used for this plan after reviewing
the counties waste -stream analysis reports required by the Waste Management
Act. Therefore, the objectives in terms of participation rates established in
this plan will be the most basic factor and a more permanant planning guide
than the objectives in terms of tonnages. The volumes recovered, however, are
more reliably quantified and 011 became the primary means for the Council to
measure county progress. Participation rates, as a practical measurement tool,
will be secondary.
?f
Waste Reduction
Reduction Levels and Target Dates
It is especially difficult to quantify the effect of most waste reduction
efforts since the basic objective relies largely on changing waste generators'
behavior. Little data is available about existing efforts or trends because
participation and volumes of waste prevented are not readily measurable.
Nonetheless, there may be substantial impact and important long-term benefits
because of increased awareness of waste generators about their role as the
first link in the overall waste management system.
The greatest immcdiate potential for waste reduction is by mulching and back-
yard composting. The other waste reduction techniques have much less certain
potential because of lack of reliable data and the speculative nature of their
implementation. Therefore, the objectives established in this plan for waste
reduction are assumed to be solely due to mulching and backyard composting.
Yard Waste Mulching and Backyard Composting
Mulching and backyard composting can be considered as one waste reduction tech-
nique because both activities require intensive and well -designed public educa-
tion dealing with the same yard waste materials. Mulching, more appropriately
called improved turf management, means more frequent mowing, cutting at higher
levels and more conservative use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers. Backyard
composting involves proper pile construction and management to ensure adequate
control of decomposing grass, leaves and Carden trimmings. To be successful,
it is essential that proper information about yard waste reduction be provided
to waste generators and be coordinated as an intergral part of the region's
larger solid waste communication pro;iam.
Yard waste mulching and backyard composting is given priority by the Council
because of its potential to red-:ce costs of separate collection and processing
through centralized composting. Also, the waste generators will benefit by
direct use of the material. Therefore, only leaves, grass clippings and garden
trimmings that cannot be mulched or composted are identified for separate
collection as described under source separation.
A permanent, region -wide publicity effort aimed at voluntary yard waste reduc-
tion should begin in the spring of 1985. With well -designed and financed
publicity programs from 1185 through 1987, voluntary participation in the mulch-
ing and backyard composting strategy should reach 30 percent. That translates
in about 44,000 tons of yard waste reduced per year, a two percent total waste
stream impact for the region, as shown on Table 4-3. After the mandatory
ordinances are adopted and publicized, participation in mulching and backyard
composting should increase to 60 percent because it will be easier to mulch by
more frequent lawn mowing than setting out bagged grass clippings for separate
collection. The resulting total waste stream impact for the region should then
be about 90,000 tons pe, year or six percent. The waste reduction objectives
established assume that eligible yard wastes make up 14 percent of the residen-
tial waste stream and three percent of the commercial waste stream.
17
Table a-3
WASTE
REDUCTION AND
SOURCE SEPARATION OBJECTIVES!
(TONS UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED)
65
86
87
BB
89
90
9I_95
%00
WASTE REDUCTION
(Prct of Total Waste
10,974
21,950
32.912
43.895
66,160
89,867
464,785
941e128
St rem)
(1)
(2)
UI
(2)
(3)
(a)
(4)
(a)
SOURCE SEPARATION
Yard Waste Orop-off
$30
1.062
1,589
2,117
5,837
3.427
17.874
19,022
Yard Waste On -route
8.694
17,388
27.077
34,771
39.252
44,006
220,483
231.311
W
ao Recycla6l es Drop-off
5,698
11,395
11, 093
22.799
30,502
78,210
198,822
264,662
RetyclaBles On -route
29,011
51.109
81,659
II6,050
168.539
221,021
1,139,14E
1.194,140
Office Paper
1,329
2,267
3.985
5.315
9.029
12.739
65.418
68.278
SOURCE SEPARATION SUBTOTAL
W.M
-ITI27
SSi7O3
IA1;02Z
25T1T+9
3i9:70i
Tb67:RS
T;77T,7L5
(Perceno1 Total Waste
Strerj
(2)
(4)
(6)
(9)
(15)
(16)
(16)
(16)
TOTAL
56.236
115.172
164,315
224,937
319,319
409,270
2.106,530
2.721,541
IThe numbers In this table my
change
depending on
1) projected participation
rates, 2) coamosition
of the
waste. and 3)
the rate of
waste 9enaratlr.
Other Waste Reduction Techniques
The other waste reductions techniques can be classified under the categories of
1) improvements to industrial or manufacturing processes, 2) improvements to
procurement policies, 3) paper reduction, and 4) legislative or regulatory
actions. Certain industries, especially heavy manufacturing, may be able to
realize cost savings if processes and raw materials are changed in favor of
alternatives producing less waste. Direct financial subsidies or tax incen-
tives may be necessary, however, to accelerate their development. Procurement
policies give greater consideration to the total costs over a product's life,
or "life -cycle costing", before purchase. This should result in preferences
for more durable, reusable and recyclable goods and should also result in a
preference for "purchasing more product and less container," such as buying in
bulk or buying in refillable bottles. Paper reduction includes information
storage and retrieval techniques that shrink office paper consumption such as
use of microfiche, use of magnetic media (for example, computer discs and
tapes) and paper conservation policies and procedures (for example, use of
carbonless forms, printing "back-to-back" on two sides rather than single -sided
copying). legislative or regulatory actions include activities such as product
bans and packaging rules. Both of these have been attempted in Minnesota as
waste reduction and environment-.l protection measures with very little
success.
No reduction levels or target dates are assigned to these ot�-r strategies
because the waste stream impact is unknown or the implementation is too specu-
lative to make specific projections. Notwithstanding, the Council and the
metropolitan counties should continue to evaluate these opportunities and if
further research warrants, this plan should be amended to include reduction
levels.
Proposed Roles and Rfsponsibilities
Programs should be established that focus on 1) enhancing the waste generator's
awareness of reduction opportunities, 2) facilitating the ability to take advan-
tage of the opportunities, and 3) developing implementation schemes that will
be economically advantageous to the recipients.
The cost savings of waste reduction activities will be the principal motivator
for change. A primary objective, therefore, should be to collect and dissemi-
nate this type of cost -benefit data. For instance, businesses and governments
that currently employ life -cycle costing in their procurement processes could
serve as models and resources for other waste generators of all types. Con-
sumer information should also be prepared to show how products sold in bulk and
in refillable containers are less costly and at the same time more environmen-
tally sound. To help consumers take advantage of the opportunities, technical
assistance programs should include model waste reduction management programs to
help residents, businesses and governments implement reduction strategies.
There are several levels of government that should be involved in waste reduc-
tion programs. Because each agency or level of government is also a waste
generator, each of them should be required to implement in-house waste reduc-
tion programs. Table 4-4 displays a list of potential roles and responsibili-
ties for the waste generator and various implementing agencies.
39
Table 4-4
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
A REGIONAL WASTE REUDCTION PROGRAM
Primary Implementor
Roles and Responsibilities
Waste Generators
- Be responsive to waste reduction information and
suggestions.
- Implement recommended policies and activities
when feasible.
Cities or Townships
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Refer businesses or other waste generators to
appropriate source of technical assistance.
Schools
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Assist in the development of curriculum packets.
County
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Distribute information provided by the Council
to municipalities, schools and other waste
generators.
- Assist the Metropolitan Council collect data and
prepare informational literature.
Metropolitan Council
- Implement in-house waste reduction program.
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications, including waste reduction.
- Research and develop waste reduction informa-
mational literature.
- Evaluate metropolitan legislative options.
Minnesota Pollution
- implement in-house waste reduction program.
Control Agency
- Assist the Metropolitan Council and counties
with research and literature development.
- Evaluate state-wide legislative options.
State of Minnesota
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Review and act on proposed legislation.
Federal Government
- Implement in-house waste reduction programs.
- Review and act on proposed legislation.
40
The central activity defined for the Metropolitan Council and the metropolitan
counties is to develop and disseminate practical information that waste gener-
ators can use about the opportunities fr ,nd benefits of waste reduction tech-
niques. The Metropolitan Council should immediately take the lead in waste
reduction research and development, an effort that will need close communica-
tion with the metropolitan counties as they develop their solid waste master
plans. The counties may decide to coordinate this responsibility through the
Metropolitan Inter County Association (MICA).
Source Separation
Service Methods, Recovery Levels and Target Dates
The source separation program consists ) separate collection of yard wastes,
office paper recycling, drop-off centers -d on -route collection. Projections
for participation and recovery rates for t,ise are based on experiences of
existing programs in the Twin Citit! Metr;puiitan Area and also from similar
programs around the country. The projected participation rates for each of the
techniques are listed in Table 4-2 and the regional objectives are listed in
Table 4-3. The highest level of convenience for the waste generator is pro-
v`. id by on -route collection. Therefore, higher levels of recovery can be
expected. The regional totals for source separation programs are 181,000 tons
per year (nine percent of the total waste) by 1988 and 319,000 tons (16 per-
cent) by 1990.
One set of the critical assumptions is the list of materials identified for
recovery by source separation (see Table 4-5). This list will be reviewed by
the Council annually and revised as necessary to adjust to changing condi-
tions. The materials vary by type of program because of the technical con-
straints of markets and collection method. This list represents those mate-
rials that are commonly collected by existing programs. The list of materials
identified for recovery is not intended to be all inclusive rr items that could
tti' 'tiLally be recycled. Additional materials that should be considered for
i include: plastics, automibile waste oil, automobile batteries, and
rt or repairable housewares such as clothing, appliances, and furniture.
$pat ials have been left out of the list of materials identified for
r, o% -cause of market or legal constraints. Items contaminated in some
fashio. r destroyed to the point that they are no longer marketable or reus-
able are not identified for recovery by source separation. Other types of m?t
rials have the potential to contaminate products, damage processing equipment
or present special public health and safety problems. These items include most
household hazardous wastes, which should be handled and treated separately.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency plans to conduct a pilot on -route collec-
tion program for hazardous wastes. If adequate safety and environmental protec-
tion procedures can be assured, these materials could then be identified for
recovery and this type of collection should be expanded region -wide.
The list of mate. ,Is identified for recovery, plus the list of additional mate-
rials that could be recovered, is very extensive. This is in line eith Cou•.il
policy that encourages as much of the waste stream as possible be recycled.
When developing and revising the list of identified materials, the benefits of
a comprehensive source separation program to the region in terms of reduced
capital and operating expenditures and environmental impacts must be consid-
ered. The state recognized these benefits in the Waste Management Act specifi-
41
Table 4-5
MATERIALS IDENTIFIED FOR RECOVERY BY SOURCE SEPARATIONI
Type of Program Materials
YARD WASTE
Separate collection of Compostable garden trimmings
Yard Wastes Grass clippings
Leaves
RECYCLABLES
Office paper recycling Books
Cardboard files
Colored legder
Computer printout paper
Computer tab cards
Corrugated
Newsprint
White legder
Drop-off centers Aluminum
Corrugated
Ferrous scrap
Glass containers
Mixed waste paper
Newspaper
Other non-ferrous
On -route collection Aluminum
Corrugated
Ferrous contairers
Glass connainers
Newspapers
Other non-ferrous
IThis list of materials identified for recovery will be
reviewed by the Council annually and revised as necessary
2 (see Definitions).
Yard waste materials identified for recovery by separate
collection do not include vegetable matter used in mulching
and backyard composting.
4?
cally exempting from flow control all materials that are separ, mixed
waste for recycling. Centralized processing facilities mwst be .. appro-
priately to account for maximum recycling scenarios.
The Council is required to adopt measurable objectives and outline activities
for each metropolitan county and local unit of government in the region. To
determine the most appropriate source separation collection method for the wide
variety of cities and townships, the Council considered population, number of
residential and commercial generators, density, and development designation
the community in the Council's Metropolitan Development Framework. Based on
this information, along with proximity of t!,•- city or township to other major
.asre generation areas, recycling service r thor!s were identified for each
local unit of government (see Figure 4-11.
Figure 4-1 shows three levels of recycling service. If curb -side, or "on -
route," collection is suggested, this implies that once -a -month curb -side
pickup of identified recyclables should be provided. Also, once -a -week curb-
side pickup of compostable yard waste should be provided, or an alternative
method of separate yard waste collection at least as convenient. Within the
curb -side areas, it is implied that existing drop-off programs •h!•- in-
tinue. If drop-off is suggested, this implies that that city or P.
under coordination of the respective county, should provide a cc drop-
off location for recyclable`. and yard waste wl:P.'.n its boundaries. no desig-
nation is identified, then tic city or township is assumed to be served by
nearby drop-off site in an ad;... nt community. These objectives are to be
attained by 1988. These are mi—nium objectives to be used as guidelines by the
counties in developing more sf ii implementation plans. More convenient
service delivery is encourage,'
The region has a well -established recycl - dustry currently ..ace that
has evolved during a long history. It ,�.eatial that the Council and metro-
politan counties first uM •rstend the ex, recycling system to be able to
build a more effective sr ;enara*lnr 9r ,ran. Markets must be examined
carefwlly and negative facilities should be minimized to
the extent possible wh .g the regional objectives. For
instance, the area of - fied for curb -side collection has a well -
established network c' .: .,ers, both charitable i.nd for -profit, that
can benefit from in as. ar&nt ;?volvement. Therefure, the counties and
mur.�_ipa :'Lies must ,.,r V.".. operations before developing new pro-
m. it is possible, e, ^sting drop-off facilities, with appropriate
expai.;ions, could serve the drup-off needs of waste generators within most of
'he uriian and suburban areas.
Separate Collection of Ya ' Wastes
Tne areas identified for curb -side service should have once -a -week, on -route
collection of yard wastes during the spring, summer and fall growing season
months by the end of 1987. Alternative service may be provided, !vch as drop-
off sites for yard waste, if it can be demu.istrated to be at least as conveni-
ent. Drop-off sits could range from small, cgighborhood cur —ting operations
to large, heavily mechanized multi -county facilities. Jolun.. y participation
in this type of yard waste source separation shoeld reach 2: percent in addi-
tion to those people complying with the msilching/backyard composting strategy.
Therefore, the total waste strr:m impact duo to s ate collection of yard
wastes should be about 37,000 tons or two percent he total waste stream.
After mandatory ordinances. are adopted and publi,,zed, the participation in
4i
Figure 4-1.
PROPOSED RECYCLING SERVICE
IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
\`
im \e \\
L'__ Served b y dro p-off site(s) in adjacent community
ODrop-off site(s) only within community
A Curbside s •vice and drop-off site(s)
1.1
addition to those complying with mulching/backyard composting should increase
to 30 percent resulting in a total waste stream impact of about 47,000 tons,
still only two percent, by 1990.
Office Paper Recycling
A significant number of business and government offices in the region currently
recycle their white office paper, computer print out paper, computer tab cards
and other high grade paper. However, there is still a large percentage of
offices that do not recycle these kinds of valuable paper and should be doing
so. This material is identified by the Council for recovery. A region -wide
effort must begin in 1985 to enlist the participation of all commercial waste
generators. Assuming that office paper comprises four percent of the commer-
cial waste stream, a 30 percent recovery rate would accomplish less than one
percent impact on the total waste stream or 5,000 tons. This level should be
reached by Jan. 1, 1988. After this date, mandatory source separation ordi-
nances, should help increase the level of recovery to 70 percent, resulting in
a one percent total waste stream impact or 13,000 tons by 1990.
Drop -Off Sites for Recyclables
Drop-off sites include any type of recycling center where res .tial, commer-
cial or industrial waste generators can bring their materials. it includes
small-scale facilities or temporary sites used for fund raising by charitable
organizations and also large-scale industrial scrap dealers or other types of
redemption operations that pay for materials. This self -haul concept relies
upon the waste generator to deliver items to be donated or sold and therefore
is much less convenient than on -route collection resulting in lower recovery
rates. Nonetheless, these facilities play an important role in providing com-
plete recycling services in the region and should not be overlooked. For
instance, drop-off sites can more easily collect a much larger variety of mate-
rials than can on -route collection programs. Drop-off sites are currently used
extensively for some of the more specialized items such as waste oil, solvents,
mixed paper, and some of the large bulky appliances and furnitcre.
A region -wide effort to increase the use of drop-off sites should result in a
reco•-,-:y rate of ten percent of those identified recyclable materials (see
Table 4-5) by the end of 1987 which would reduce the total waste stream by one
percent, or 23,000 tons. Two years after mandatory ordinances become effec-
tive, this recovery rate should jump to 15 percent which would impact the total
waste stream by two percent (38,000 tons).
0. oute Collection
The voluntary program si be able to attain 40 percent partipation by 1988,
resulting in a waste sty .mpact of six percent (116,000 tons). The manda-
tory incentive should increase this rate to 70 percent particpation and 11 per-
cent total waste stream impact by 1990 (221,000 tons).
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
To maximize the effectiveness of source separation requires efforts by several
levels of government, the waste generator and private businesses (see
Table 4-6). The requirement that waste generators separate recyclables and
compostable yard waste should be established as the mean ire L7 minimua perfor-
mance. Compliance shoulJ be mandated by cities and townships in 1988 after
adequate public information and collection service is available.
4C
Table 4-6
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING
A REGIONAL SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM
Primary Implementor Roles and Responsibilities
Waste Generators - Improve turf management ("mulching" of grass and
leaves) whenever possible.
- Compost on -site (backyard).
- Separate remaining compostable yard wastes.
- Clean ani separate recyclables.
- Be responsive to communications necessary for proper
compliance.
Cities or Townships - Collect sq•..rce separated yard wastes and recyclables
either directly or through private companies.
- Adopt mandatory source separation ordinances at least
as strict as the county.
- Assist counties with siting and/or development of
processing facilities for source separated materials.
- Assist with local publicity tools (e.g., ilyers,
neighborhood meetings, newsletters).
Schools - Develop in-house paper recovery programs.
- Assist with the development and implementation of
curriculum packets.
County - Plan, site, develop, and, if necessary,
capitalize intermediate processing facilities for
source separated materials.
- Investigate cooperative marketing with other counties.
- Adopt county -wide collection ordinances by 1988
including requirements for 1) provision of adequately
convenient separate collection services and 2)
municipal mandatory source separation ordinances.
- Implement county -wide publicity tools (e.g., daily
newspapers).
- Provide technical and financial assistance to
municipalities and private service providers.
Metropolitan Council - Monitor progress toward regional goals and
objectives; clarify as necessary.
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications.
- Provide technical and financial assistance to
counties, municipalities, and private service
providers.
- Research and develop markets and processing
techniques.
Private Service - Collect,process and market source separated materials
Provider in cooperation with government efforts.
- Publicize services in coordination with regional
commilications p•ogram.
ai
The service -providing role defined for the cities and townships is flc: ..
Contracting with private collection companies is encouraged. Col Iectioi, respon-
sibilities could also be assumed by the counties. However, it is essential
that counties adopt collection ordinances by 1988 for mandatory source separa-
tion requiring participation of their residents. Municipalities must adopt
their county's mandatory source separation collection ordinance by reference or
more stringent ordinances. The cities and townships should also help the
counties with development of intermediate processing facilities by at least
assisting with analysis of site alterratives. The larger, more central cities
could even take over the role of project developer if coordinated with the
respective county. If the private sector or constituent municipalities do net
provide these source separation scrvices, the metropolitan counties must assure
adequate development.
One of the most important roles of the counties is to assure orderly and coor-
dinated development of multi -material, intermediate processing or transfer
facilities for identified recyclables. Centralized sites with adequate er,uip-
ment may be necessary for the regional source separation objectives to be
attained. These facilities could be planned in conjunction with the mixed
waste processing facilities, perhaps even at the same sites. Furthermore.
intercounty coordination may enhance the economic feasibility of these recycl-
abies processing plants and promote cooperative marketing of the materials.
The role of the Metropolitan Council shall be overall coordination, including
1) clarification and monitoring regional goals and objectives, 2) technical
assistance to help establish programs, 3) financial assistance, and 4) research
and development, especially in terms of markets and long-term financing mecha-
nisms. The role defined for private companies is to provide adequate collec-
tion, processing and publicity services in cooperation with the counties and
municipalities that develop the various contracts.
Factors Influencing Participation
Mandatory Source -Separation Ordinances
Mandatory separation ordinances should not specify where the material must no.
They should simply state that the identified material shall not be placed with
the mixed municipal solid waste. Haste reduction (that is, mulching and back-
yard composting) should be emphasized within the ordinances to reduce the
volume of yard wastes requiring separate collection. The generators' right to
decide what they wish to do with the material once separated should be pre-
served. For example, if some residents have decided to collect grass clippings
rather than mulch, they could bring that material to a neighborhood composting
bin rather than set it out for separate collection. Similarly, residents would
be allowed and encouraged to sell their aluminum cans at a redemption center or
donate their newspapers to a charity group rather than set them out for sepa-
rate, on -route collection. The choice remains with the waste generator.
Legal enforcement actions, such as fines, may be an option made available
within the local ordinance. The municipality may still decide not to enforce
in this manner. However, mandatory programs should provide adequate publicity
about the ordinance and the potential legal consequences for non-compliance.
Also, notices could be left on garbage cans or at the door of residents deter-
mined to be violating the ordinance.
47
Convenience and Reliable Servi,c
Four factors can determine the level of convenience to the waste generator for
separate collection of recyclables and yard waste: 1) frequency and time of
pickup, Z) degree of preparation that the material requires, 3) provision of
household containers, and 4) degree of reliability for pickup.
Once -a -month frequency of collection for recyclables is the minimum that must
be provided to achieve minimally adequate participation rates. Preference
should be given to programs that can provide more frequent service. For
instance, twice -a -month service can be optimal for separate collection of recy-
clables, depending the specifics of the community and its program design.
However, because of cost implications, once -a -month shall be the region -wide
standard for those identified urban and suburban portions of the Metropolitan
Area.
Frequency for yard waste collection should be once a week during the growing -
season months, especially spring and early summer. This material should not be
allowed to sit unattended for any longer because of potential odor problems
from grass clippings, which are defined as part of compostable yard waste.
Drop-off sites may be provided as an alternative to on -route collection of yard
wastes. However, these sites must be located conveniently enough to achieve
comparable participation rates. Roll -off boxes used to collect yard wastes and
then haul it to centralized composting facilities could be provided as an alter-
native to permanently established bins or sites. Neighborhood composting bins,
possibly in conjunction with neighborhood gardens, could also be an acceptable
alternative.
The amount of material preparation required of the generator depends on market
specifications and what the intermediate processing is designed to do. The
region currently has only minimal mechanized processing capacity for recycl-
ables and yard wastes, and therefore the waste generator must prepare materials
to a high degree (for example, removing metal and plastic contaminants from
glass containers). The counties should place a priority on establishing inter-
mediate processing centers for recy^lables and yard waste materials so that the
level of convenience to their residents can be improved. Intermediate process-
ing centers should be established or. a multicounty basis to optimize haul dis-
tances, efficiencies of scale and cooperative marketing potentials. These
intermediate processing facilities should be operating by 1988 to correpond to
the mandatory source -separation requirement. In the meantime, residents must
continue to separate and clean their materials as needed to provide adequate
quality of supply.
Providing household containers for recyclables add,. ' convenience and
personal satisfaction for residents. It can also sr a publicity tool to
remind neighbors to set out their materials. Count J municipalities
should give consideration to providing household cc ..rs.
Continuous Publicity
Participation cannot be developed, increased or maintained unless a permanent
and well -designed publicity campaign is established for each program. This
essential factor can not be replaced by other means to achieve high participa-
tion. Content, format and method of delivery are not as important as the con-
tinuous nature of information about the particular program. For instance, it
is desirable to deliver or mail a program noti-e once every six months, and
preferably more often, for a year-round source separation program for
recyclables.
Financial Incentives
Financial incentives include 1) rebates to participants, 2) penalties for non-
compliance, 3) charges per bag or per can of mixed solid waste charges, 4) ex-
tra charges for prohibited yard waste materials or recyclables, and 5) deposit,
on beer and soft drink containers. These options can be developed in various
combinations but cannot replace continous publicity or convenient and reliable
service.
Mandatory container deposit legislation could result in very high recovery
rates for the designated items. Deposits of this type would likely impact the
total waste stream by a minimum of three percent by weight. The increased
volume of material available for recycling can stimulate market development and
expanded or new processing capacity. The Council and metropolitan counties
should recommend that the Minnesota Legislature enact a state-wide container
deposit program.
Institutional Constraints and Other Issues
The savings of source separation due to avoided haul costs and landfill tipping
charges are most often not realized directly by the recovery program or the
residents. The savings are realized by the mixed -waste haulers not involved
with the source separation program who charge on a per stop basis. A source
separatiur. program will reduce the amount of mixed waste to pick up but not
eliminate the need for pickup sources for such waste. Therefore, mixed waste
haulers would receive the same amount of revenue but have less waste to pick
up, haul and unload at the landfill. Two institutional barriers that can
easily be identified include 1) the lack of organized collection and 2) the
lack of separate accounting for disposal savings.
Most haulers are reluctant to get involved with source separation because it is
not financially attractive enough. Economics are poor if the source separation
program is aimed at potential participants among the hauler's customers who are
spread out within a large area. Publicity effectiveness is diluted and collec-
tion efficiencies are lowered. Haulers cannot be expected to serve an entire
area for recyclables or yard waste collection if they do not serve the same
area for mixed waste collection because it would directly benefit their competi-
tion at their own expense. This situation exists because "open hauling" pre-
vails in about 80 percent of the region. Under open hauling arrangements, the
individual homeowner contracts for mixed municipal solid waste collection. One
alternative is to change to organized collection of mixed waste.
The Metropolitan Cnuncil is required by state law to study the feasibility of
and implementation mechanisms for organized collection. One of the key aspects
o° the Council's study will be research on the following issues:
1. Can municipalities organize solid waste collection services? if not, what
type of legislation is needed?
2. Can counties organize solid waste collection services directly or through
their municipalities? If not, what type of legislation is needed?
3. Can municipalities or counties guarantee haulers that they will be able to
maintain their existing number of accounts if collection is organized?
49
There are three major cost sectors within the business of mixed waste removal:
collection involving the actual pickup, transfer or hauling to a landfill, and
landfilling. If the hauling company or the governmental unit that manages the
operations does not provide for separate accounting of these three cost sec-
tors, than it is difficult if not impossible to credit the savings of avoided
costs to source separation.
CENTRALIZED PROCESSING
Recovery Levels and Target Dates
A regional system of processing facilities will take four to five years to
establish. The Council estimates that 80 percent of the region's waste can be
managed by centralized processing facilities by 1990. Table 4-7 indicates the
recovery levels expected for each county and the dates by which these levels
can be achieved. In many instances ranges are given because it is difficult
to predict when a processing facility will begin operation and attain its
designated capacity.
Table 4-7
PERCENT RECOVERY BY COUNTY BY YEAR
FOR CENTRALIZED PROCESSING FACILITIES
1991 1996-
County
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
Anoka
2
1
4-19
19-57
80
80
80
Carver
0
0
0
0
0-29
82
82
82
Dakota
2
2
2
4-14
14-57
80
8o
80
Hennepin
2
2
2
2-11
11-57
80
80
80
Ramsey
1
1
1
5-57
67-72
77
77
77
Scott
18
18
18
18
18-29
83
83
83
Washington
19
19
19-25
25-57
67-72
79
79
79
Total
48
48
91
509
1,179
1,681
8,669
9,089
(tonnagges
in 1,000s)
Metropolitan
2
2
4
25
57
80
80
80
Area (Percent
of Regional
Total)
Processing facilities will be down during maintenance periods or in emergen-
cies. However, most of the waste should still be processed rather than
diverted directly to landfills. Arrangements must be made among processing
plants to assure the continued processing of municipal solid waste. Co -compost-
ing facilities should be able to accommodate additional quantities of waste in
emergency situations.
Transfer/Processing
Transfer/processing facilities play a key role in collection of the waste from
a service area and transporting it to other processing facilities. Transfer
stations and their service areas would supply centralized processing, combus-
tion and composting facilities. Transfer stations are likely to be distributed
throughout the region, located in both the central cities and rural freestand-
ing growth centers. Transfer stations in outlying areas would especially be
important to reduce the cost of hauling mixed wastes to the more centrally
located processing facilities. Transfer stations in these areas should be
closely, if not physically, linked with recycling drop-off centers, to increase
efficiencies of service.
Transfer facilities can also be linked with recyclable processing facilities or
in conjunction with mixed -waste processing. This means that a transfer facil-
ity could accept mixed wastes and process it into fuel for transport to a com-
bustion or composting facility. It could also receive and process recyclables
for distribution to their respective markets. These types of facilities will
probably service a larger area and operate for a longer period of time during
the day to capitalize on the investment in equipment. These facilities will
likely be located within the urban service area.
Development of abatement programs and activities will stimulate the need for
more efficient transfer am;,rocessing of mixed municipal wastes and recycl-
ables. Existing transfer facilities could be incorporated into the proposed
processing system. Some improvements to the existing transfer stations may be
necessary to meet the needs of the developing system.
Transfer facilities must be compatible with the development of the other pro-
cessing facilities. These facilities must be in operation by 1990.
Waste Combustion
The maximum recovery possible from waste combustion is between 54 and 71 per-
cent of the total waste stream, depending on the technology used. Table 4-8
identifies the percentage of mixed waste that can be managed by combustion
facilities. Consideration should be given to implementing facilities that
will burn a refuse -derived fuel in existing facilities. Solid waste composting
facilities are an important adjunct to RDF facilities. These facilities may
offer additional recovery beyond the mass -burn technology by composting the
heavy organic fraction of the residuals. In addition, there are subs'.antial
cost savings ii existing boilers are modified to burn RDF rather than construc-
ting new boilers. Energy recovery facilities that burn RDF may process mixed
waste on -site or elect to only receive RDF from the regional transfer stations
facilities.
Flexibility is an important consideration in the development of energy recovery
facilities. Combustion facilities that can generate both steam and electricity
are preferred over those that will generate only steam or electricity. In addi-
tion, preferences should be given to those facilities that can absorb addi-
tional volumes of fuel by operating around the clock and whose market for elec-
tricity or steam is large and varied. These elements reduce the public risk.
51
Table 4-8
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY COMBUSTION FACILITIES
BY C,UNTY BY YEAR
1991-
1996-
County
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
Anoka
0
0
0
0-15
15-50
68
68
68
Carver
0
0
0
0
0-25
70
70
70
Dakota
0
0
0
0-10
10-50
68
68
68
Hennepin
2
2
2
2-10
10-50
68
68
68
Ramsey
1
1
1-5
5-50
60
65
65
65
Scott
18
18
18
18
18-25
71
71
71
Washington
19
19
19-25
25-50
60
67
67
67
Total
40
40
73
430
1,108
1,429
7,368
7,725
(Tonnages
in 1000's)
Percent of
Region
2
2
4
21
54
68
68
68
Solid Waste Composting
Solid waste composting facilities will play an important role in managing the
region's mixed municipal solid waste. Products and markets must be developed
prior to fir,plementing large-scale co -compost facilities. At a minimum the
counties should implement a three-year, composting demonstration project. The
purpose of the demonstration project is to determine the process requirements
and costs necessary to produce a marketable compost pr,iuct. The project
should evaluate the use of sewage sludge and septage as a feedstock mat—ial to
compost mixed municipal solid waste. The counties will need to coordinate
their efforts with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and/or septage
haulers to obtain adequate quantities of sewage sludge or septage for the
project if these are the selected sources of feedstock.
The counties should consider de.r-.,Jng at least two demonstration facilities
to provide additional flexibility a-,j variety in experimentation. The facili-
ties may employ a variety of methods to compost the sludge or septage and solid
waste. The facility design should be able to accommodate changing demonstra-
tion needs or product marketing requirements. Completely enclosed mechanical
composting facilities including ;n-vecsel reactors should be considered at this
time. These larger, more capital intensive facilitites require more secure
market commitments.
The facility should produce a variety of final products for evaluation and mar-
ket development. Potential users of the end product should be involved in eval-
uating the final products produced by the facility. These users should compare
the performance or the co -compost with other soil amendments or additives nor-
mally used. Public agencies or private organizations should use the co -compost
product on a trial ba! The demonstration project should begin in 1985. The
existing cc sting facilities must be expanded in 1988, 1989 and 1990 to
•,commodate - flow of organic residuals from processing facilities that will
ne on-line later in the decade. A schedule for implementing the co-compost-
4 facilities is shown in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9
PERCENTAGE OF MIXED WASTE PROCESSED BY CO -COMPOSTING FACILITIES
BY COUNTY BY YEAR
199' 1996-
County
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
Anoka
2
2
2
4
4-7
12
12
12
Carver
0
0
0
0
0-4
12
12
12
Dakota
2
2
2
4
4-7
12
12
12
Hennepin
0
0
0
0-1
1-7
12
12
12
Ramsey
0
0
0
1-7
7-12
12
12
12
SO !
0
0
0
0
0-4
12
12
12
Wa ington
0
0
0
!-7
7-12
12
12
12
P rcent Of
kegion
0.4
0.4
0.4
1-3
3-10
12
12
12
Total
'Tonnages<.
19-
73-
I,000s)
7
7
7
73
196
252
1,300
1.363
Pr,posed Roles and Responsibilities
Centralized Management and Coordination
Centralized management and coordination refers to the need to manage wastes
from its generation to final disposal. Centralized management and coordination
are necessary to construct and operate a new waste management system for the
region. The new system will use a broad spectrum of facilities that includes
transfer stations, facilities that are capable of processing mixed wastes into
RDF and/or recyclables for market, ar' waste combustion and co -composting
facilities.
These facilities operate together and are dependent upon each other. Transfer
stations supply processing facilities with mixed wastes. Processing facilities
supply combustion and co -composting facilities with processed waste. Changes
in the capability or operation of one facility could affect the operation of
other facilities. Therefore, it is important to establish a mana ent system
to coordinate V, operations of the facilities within the system. centralized
management and .00rdination would ensure the facilites are operating
efficiently.
A centralized management s;!stem could also ensure fl-xibility in the use of
facilities. For example, the operation of one facility could be expanded to
mnnaue wastes coming from another facility that is down for maintenance or
repairs. Thus, waste services are `.ill made available to the hauler and wast-
yenerator with a rinimu.n of inconvenience.
Waste serV4e areas for all types of process'...g facilities Oil ikely cross
county t,oundaries. Therefore, it is 'mportant for counties to work together in
developing processing facilities. There are several methods available to the
counties in working togetner to implement processing facilities. One option is
for thuse counties to establish a joint -powers agreement. The other Option
SI
available to the counties immediately or in the near future is to establish
solid waste management districts. Districts have the same duties and authori-
ties as counties that are needed to impleeient processing facilities. Districts
are more likely to be established once the basic waste management services and
facilities are implemented.
A third ops.an is for counties to make contractural arrangements with each
other. One county could contract for waste processing services with a facility
owned by another county. A county could also contract directly with the owner
of a waste f•'' The other option is for counties to coordinate their pro-
grams or fa
The centralize- essing facilities can be owned by the counties, ether pub-
lic entities or p.ovate companies. First preference is given to those facili-
ties that are privately owned, operated and maintained.
With guarantees by the county that mixed waste vill be delivered to the mixed
waste processing facility, it will be more likL•y that these facilities will
obtain adequate long-term financing. There are several methods by which coun-
ties could provide guarantees that waste will be delivered to processing facili-
ties. These include contract, with haulers, municipalities or county or a
waste designation plan and oriinance. These mechanisms have advantages and
disadvantages and the mechanise: used depends on the circumstance, •nd condi-
tions under which the guarantee is needed.
Contracts with haulers have been used to supply waste to small processing
facilities such as mo, ;r cc-bustion units. However, this method has severe
drawbacks for larger p-ocessing facil�-_ies where large amounts of waste are
needed. Because haulers only own or control the waste when the consumer ;ur-
chases the waste haulers's service, there is nothing to prevent consumer; frrm
switching haulers a. any time.
Contracts with municipalities could o.'rer additional certainty for the county
if municipalities could '.rart with the county for waste processing ser 'Ices
and with others for come .ion end transport of the waste to the transfer Jr.d/
or processing facilities. However, few municipalities in the Metropolitan Area
have municipal or organized collection services. This malt?,, will be explored
in the organized �:iliection study to be prepared by the Council in 1985.
The use of economic inceirc •._=s eliminates or reduces t.., =parity in tipping
fees between the facility and the landfill. Another so..ce of revenue is
needed to keep the tipping fee at the facility low enough to ensure that the
waste will be delivered to the facility. Determining how to subsidize the
tipping fee and convincing the financial community that waste will be delivered
to the facility are key disadvantages.
Another method to provide waste to a facility is through resignation. A .?esic-
nation plan and ordinance established by the county provides a dire t legal
requirement that waste be de.!vered to a resource recovery facility. Designa-
tion assures a waste supply to a faci'Ity and provides enough certainty to
finance the facility. Designation pla,xs amp ordinances must be approved ! *e
Council (see criteria for reviewing designation proposals in the appendix
94
Subregional Service Areas
Overview
Counties should work together to capitalize on opportunities to develop waste
processing facilities. County cooperation could achieve significant economies
of scale and reduce duplicative facilities and services for natural service
areas. County cooperation ensures more efficient facility sizes, locations
and operation, and overall system flexibility.
Combinations of counties that should work together are:
1. Anoka and Hennepin;
2. Dakota and Hennepin;
3. Dakota, Ramsey and Washington; and
4. Carver and Scott.
Anoka and Hennepin Counties
There are several reasons why Anoka and Hennepin Counties should work together
to establish processing facilities. The available landfill capacity in the
northern region of the Metropolitan Area is in short supply. There is a need
tc, expedite the development of processing facilities to handle the waste gener-
ated in this area. A significant portion of the waste generated in Anoka
County is immediately east of the Mississippi River, which separates the coun-
1:4�s and is close to the potential sites being explored by Hennepin County for
p, .essing facilities. In addition, Anoka County itself may not generate
enough waste to capitalize on the economy of scale a large processing facility
affords.
The counties should consider establishing a transfer station with recyclables
and mixed waste processing to service the northwestern region of the Metropol-
itan Area. The counties may consider implementing a waste combustion facility
for OF in conjunction with Northern States Power Company (NSP) and United
Power Association at its facility in Elk River.
Dakota and Hennepin Counties
Dakota County should cooperate with Hennepin County to establish waste process-
ing facilities. Dakota County may not generate enough waste alone to support a
large processing facility. A significant portion of the waste generated in
Dakota County is located in the northwestern reaches of the county, specifi-
cally Eagan, Apple Valley, Burnsville and Lakeville. Both Dakota and Hennepin
County areas that generate waste are closely linked by major transportation
routes and are serviced by two existing landfills.
Dakota County should work with Hennepin County to establish waste processing
facilities to service this area. A potential market for incineration of RDF is
NSP's Black Dog electrical generating facility. The area also contains poten-
tial sites for locating other waste facilities such as transfer stations,
recyclable processing and co -composting facilities. There are significant
opportunities to explore the potential of a co -compost facility in this area
because two Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) sewaage treatment
plants are located nearby. Both the MWCC and University of Minnesota have
large landholdings in the county that could be used for a co -compost demonstra-
tion project. The University of Minnesota has the expertise to evaluate com-
post as a soil amendment and its environmental impacts.
'8
Dakota, Ramsey and Washington Counties
Ramsey and Washington Counties have a joint -powers agreement to implement waste
processing facility to service both counties. The proposed locations of these
facilities are such that they could easily service the waste generating area of
northeastern Dakota County. A significant portion of the waste generated in
the northern and eastern portions of Dakota County is within minutes of pro-
posed locations for a wate processing facility to serve Ramsey and Washington
Counties. Furthermore, there are indications from Ramsey and Washington Coun-
ties that the proposed processing facility will be oversized or be amenable to
modification for processing additional wastes. In addition, these counties
should capitalize on the opportunity to experiment with co -compost because of
the close proximity to MWCC wastewater treatment plants.
Carver and Scott Counties
Carver and Scott Counties sho,id cooperate together because most of the waste
generated within the two counties is serviced by one landfill. The major areas
generating waste, Shakopee, Chaska and Chanhassen, for both counties are
located within relatively close to each other and are connected by major
highways. In addition, neither county by itself generates sufficient
quantities of wastes to implement but the smallest of modular combustion
units. Cooperation in implementing a joint waste management system could
reduce overall transportation and processing costs.
Carver and Scott counties should consider establishing waste processing facili-
ties to serve the counties. It is important for each county to establish con-
venient locations for transfer of mixed waste and recyclables from drop-off
locations to processing facilities. The counties should evaluate potential
energy markets in the Shakopee and Chaska and Chanhassen area. The counties
should also evaluate the potential for composting their waste with sludge pro-
duced at the Blue Lake Treatment Plant. Sludge processing equipment has not
yet been installed at the plant, which means equipment modifications could be
made to accommodate composting activities.
A potential market for incineration of RDF is NSP's Black Dog electrical genera-
ting facility or its facility in Mankato. Other potential energy or RDF mar-
kets may exist in the industrial areas near Shakopee, Chanhassen and Chaska.
Barriers to Implementation
There are potential barriers that may have to be overcome to implement central-
ized processing in the Metropolitan Area. These barriers include siting, empha-
sis on private sector involvement and markets. Probably the most significant
barrier is siting.
The location of sites for waste processing facilities and transfer stations is
difficult. Like landfills, people who live near proposed facilites object to
the facility being located in their neighborhood. Public I,�alth and property
value impacts are often cited as major concerns.
The legislative emphasis on private sector involvement has slowed the process
down. The private sector will not make investments in resource recovery with-
out certainty that.the waste will not continue to go to land disposal facili-
ties. A resource recovery system cannot compete on price with the existing low-
cost system emphasizing landfills.
SF
Solid waste as a fuel must compete with other sources of energy such as coal,
natural gas and oil. Low fuel prices discourages the use of solid waste as a
fuel. The effort needed to produce ROF and the inherent difficulty in assuring
a known waste supply, has also discouraged the use of RDF. Similarly, compost
has not been available for use and testing by potential users. The low cost of
peat, nitrogen fertilizer and other soil amendments have hindered the develop-
ment and use of composted solid wastes.
MARKET DEVELOPMENT
Overview
Market development is any activity undertaken by business or government that
will directly or indirectly result in expanded or new consumption by end users
of materials and energy derived from solid waste. Market development should be
comprised of many strategies aimed at increasing both supply and demand of mate-
rials and energy. It is very important that equal consideration is given to
the need for expansion and development of materials and energy markets along
with the collection and processing of solid waste.
There are a wide variety of existing market development efforts around the
country and in Minnesota. In addition, the recent amendments to the Minnesota
Waste Management Act authorize several market development incentives and
research activities. The amendments provide two tax incentives 1) an invest-
ment credit of ten percent of the cost of equipment used for solid or hazardous
waste processing at a resource recovery facility, and 2) an exemption from
sales tax on the same type of equipment. It will be very important to publi-
cize the investment opportunities made available by the tax credit and to
monitor the extent of its application.
The Council has initiated preliminary research on the constraints and opportu-
nities for market development in the region. Energy market conditions are con-
strained by certain technical, economic and institutional barriers. The
relatively low cost of competing conventional fuel supplies, especially coal,
is one of the more important economic constraints. There are a variety of
other complex factors which inhibit demand for secondary materials including
constraints on end users and suppliers.
Each specific industry must be examined as an individual case to adequately
understand the problems and opportunities for growth. Indications are that
specific materials markets should receive emphasis on the development of demand
(plastics, magazines, rubber, and compost) and other materials markets should
receive emphasis on collection and processing (glass, old corrugated contain-
ers, high grade papers). Other materials are more borderline suggesting a need
for both development of supply and demand (newspaper, mixed waste paper, fer-
rous, aluminum, other non-ferrous). Certain specialized materials have a more
uncertain status including: housewares, demolition debris, tree and brush
wastes, waste oil, and batteries.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
Table 4-10 displays the proposed roles and responsibilities for the various gov-
ernment agencies, levels of government and solid waste markets. The market
development activities proposed for the Council, in some cases, are the same
activities proposed for the Council in the regional solid waste communications
program.
5%
Table 4-10
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING A
REGIONAL MARKET DEVELOMENT PROGRAM
Primary Implementor
Roles and Responsibilities
Metropolitan
- Coordinate initiation of a regional market development
Council
program with other affected agencies.
- Publish a newsletter on solid waste communications.
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
communications.
- Continue to publish Rees c1e ItItI directory.
- Publish directory o sef condary materials markets.
- Study the need for and feasibility of an information
reporting system to collect data on supply and demand
estimates.
- Investigate other states' market development programs.
- Examine the need to remove 10 percent cap on market
development allocations from grant/loan program.
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper).
- Assist University of Minnesota with compost research
program.
Minnesota Department
- Assist Council with initiation of a regional market
of Energy and
development program.
Economic Development
- Maintain permanent state-wide market development
(DEED)
program.
State Government
- Commitment to coordination of state activities con-
cerning market development.
Counties
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper, recapped tires, compost, concrete,
wood products).
- Develop demonstration program for co -composting
process technology.
- Assist University of Minnesota with compost research
program.
- Develop technical assistance programs to promote small
energy recovery projects for in-house utilization.
Cities or Townships
- Continue and expand purchase of recycled products
(especially paper, recapped tires, compose, concrete,
wood products).
Secondary Material
- Cooperate and assist with Council and DEED initiation
or Energy Markets
of regional and state-wide market development programs
- Develop independent recommendations for legislation
and other government action.
f
The Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) should take
on a leadership role for market development among the state agencies. The list
of the state agencies that are or should be involved with solid waste market
development are:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnesota Waste Management Board (WMB)
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Department of Administration
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
All levels of government and involved agencies should adopt a procurement
policy that favors purchase of recycled products where possible. One of the
metropolitan counties should take the lead on a co -composting demonstration to
provide the University of Minnesota with enough product to test. This demon-
stration should could be a temporary commitment.The cooperation and involvement
of industries that are or could be secondary materials and energy markets is
essential to the program's success.
COMMUNICATION OF SOLID WASTE INFORMATION
Overview
There are three basic sectors involved in the solid paste management system:
1) the individual generators (residences and busines,es), 2) the solid waste
service providers (waste/recyclables collection and processing firms and agen-
cies), and 3) planning and regulatory governmental agencies and units. Each of
the sectors must be informed and coordinated if the Council"s goals and poli-
cies outlined in this plan are to be realized. Therefore, a cohesive, regional
communications network must be established.
Many ongoing communications efforts currently exist in the region (e.g.,
haulers billing notices, county and city recycling program publicity, plan and
project media coverage). These are most often operated independently without
regard to overlap of audience, duplication of effort, or efficiency with
respect to the other communications programs.
Proposed Roles and Responsibilities
The government sector must take a leadership role to provide the tools and
opportunities for effective and efficient communications. Neither private
industry nor the individual generators can be expected to consider enough of
the entire solid waste management system to coordinate a regional communica-
tions system effectively. However, all sectors should contribute to planning,
coordinating and implementing the regional communications program, especially
those providers that have existing public awareness campaigns (see Table 4-11).
Metropolitan Council should build upon its already existing community involve-
ment framework (sometimes called "citizen participation program") to increase
the quality and cost-effectiveness of input to solid waste planning processes
throughout the region. Specific standards should be established for public
input for the development of the counties" solid waste master plans and
resource recovery projects.
59
Table 4-11
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING A
REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
Primary Implementor
Roles and Responsibilities
Metropolitan
- Facilitate centralized coordination of regional
Council
communications.
- Publish newsletter on solid waste.
- Continue to publish Recycle It! directory of regional
recycling services.
- Continue development of computer -phone network for
access to Rec cle It! listings.
- Publish technical assistance literature for use by
counties and municipalities.
- Provide person -to -person technical assistance for
counties and municipalities.
- Implement region -wide publicity strategies including
broadcast or electronic media.
Counties
- Plan and supervise publicity campaigns for county -wide
reduction and recovery programs.
- Implement certain county -wide publicity tools (e.g.,
daily newspapers).
- Assist with regional coordination.
- Provide technical assistance to municipalities.
Cities or Townshir•
- Implement certain local publicity tools identified by
county (e.g., flyers, neighborhood meetings,
newsletters, municipal utility bills).
- Assist with regional coordination.
Schools
- Assist with development and implementation of solid
waste curriculum.
Private Service
- Implement publicity for individual programs
Providors
- Advise county about specific needs for assis .tee
- Assist with regional coordination.
Minnesota Pollution
- Implement state-wide publicity strategies.
Control Agency
- Facilitate state-wide coordination.
Provide technical assistance
(e1
The Council should form a techical advisory committee for regional public edu-
cation and awareness to coordinate all solid waste awareness and publicityy
efforts in the Metropolitan Area. This committee could be formed on a volun-
tary basis and serve in an limited advisory capacity to the Council and
counties. Members of this committee should include key staff representatives
of the following agencies and groups: Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Inter -
County Association (MICA), each of the seven counties, MPCA, Minnesota Waste
Management Board, Department of Energy and Economic Development, Minnesota
Environmental Education Board (MEEK), Minnesota Waste Management Association,
the Minnesota Chapter of the Governmental Refuse Collection and Dispposal
Association (GRCDA), recyclers, Business and Industry Recycling Program (BIRP),
and Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry (MAGI). This committee
should be an active coordinating and implementing body charged with several
tasks including:
- Develop nonbinding recommendations for a ling -term, action -oriented public
awareness and education implementation program for the region. This pro-
gram should address in more detail 1) the roles of each of the key agen-
cies and provider groups, 2) sources of funding, and 3) ongoing perform-
ance monitoring of various publicity efforts. This program could then be
adopted by each of the various key agencies and provider groups at their
discretion.
- Coordinate and promote cooperation between ongoing and future publicity
programs to optimize cost-effectiveness of individual and collective
efforts.
- Advise the Council and counties on communications policies, priorities and
implementation needs.
The public education and awareness technical advisory committee should not
attempt to implement communications activities directly but rather suggest
appropriate assignments of actual tasks to appropriate agencies or provider
groups. General categories of the public relations tools that should be con-
sidered are image/identity issues, print media, broadcast media, special
events, and networking. The preliminary work of the Council-s Metropolitan
Waste Management Advisory Subcommittee on Communications and Market Development
could be used as an initial guide for this committee. Each of the seven metro-
politan counties should delegate a key representative to the regional communi-
cations advisory committee. This person should be a staff member familiar with
ongoing and planned solid waste publicity efforts in his/her county.
The counties should assume ultimate responsibility for implementing campaigns
for specific waste reduction/recovery projects and programs. This role could
include 1) actual funding of publicity strategies, 2) contracting for services,
3) monitoring performance of municipal programs, or 4) staffing of certain pro-
jects. The counties may not need to provide the service directly, but should
ensure the service or information is available. Vehicles most appropriate for
county implementation may include daily newspapers. Individual county commis-
sioners should provide the necessary leadership by offering to assist in the
general public awareness campaign elements.
Municipalities should be encouraged to get directly involved in the publicity
campaigns of programs and projects providing service in their area. If a city
or township is not actually providing the service, it should consider using its
potential "cost recovery" funds from the Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Fund
a
to assist with the publicity of services of other providers. Municipalities
can also help greatly by identifying important community organizations that may
wish to assist with the publicity of specific projects. Also, municipal
utility bills (e.g., water, sewer) should be considered as appropriate vehicles
for literature about solid waste programs and/or problems.
The individual companies that provide solid waste and recyclables collection
services are in the best position to know the needs of their specific program.
Therefore, it should be the providers primary responsibility to publicize the
specifics about their project especially as it aimed at encouraging resident
participation in a specific manner. Governmental units and agencies that are
not directly providing the service can assist with these efforts but should
assume secondary responsibility.
LAND DISPOSAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The land disposal development program allocates the needed land disposal capa-
city in the region between 1985 through the year 2000. The development program
will be used to make decisions, through permits and certificates of need, where
and when new land disposal capacity will developed. The program applies to
both the final siting of new facilities and the expansion of existing land dis-
posal facilities. The program contains a land disposal development schedule
that allocates capacity on a county basis. The Council will review the land-
fill development schedule every year and will revise the schedule based on the
progress made towards attainment of the waste reduction/recovery objectives.
Land disposal facilities will continue to play a significant albeit diminished
role in the region as an operating component of the future solid waste manage-
ment system. Residues such as ash from incineration facilities and nonbio-
degradeable substances screened out of co -compost will probably be handled by
land disposal facilities. Future abatement efforts may show the potential to
recycle the residuals for productive purposes; however, additional research is
needed.
There is significant capacity remaining in the existing landfill system. This
capacity needs to be carefully managed to prevent the premature development of
new land disposal facilities. Implementation of the waste reduction and
resource recovery development program will significantly reduce the amount of
waste requiring land disposal, by about 50 percent. This reduction in volume
increases the operating period of the existing land disposal system and delays
the point in time at which new facilities are developed.
Land disposal capacity will be needed to handle special wastes, such as demoli-
tion debris. Some of these wastes are unique to certain industrial generators
and may require special handling procedures or landfill design requirements.
Oftentimes these wastes are not easily separated or must be kept separate from
ash or mixed municipal solid wastes. Therefore, industrial generators often
have their own landfill for their special wastes. In other circumstances
special wastes can be saf- fisposed at a mixed waste landfill with the other
wastes or in a separate a cot -ties will determine the quantities of
special wastes that must L_ :heir study of commercial and industrial
waste generation that will L in 1985.
62
ALLOCATION OF LAND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
Capacity, location and operational factors must be considered in the develop-
ment of new land disposal capacity. Adequate capacity is needed to ensure the
continued efficient operation of the solid waste management system. Locational
factors such as accessibility and convenience are also important. Operational
factors such as how many years a facility operates is important to the host
community.
Waste generation rates are not expected to change significantly in the future
so any increases in the total quantities of waste will occur due to population
and employment growth. County land disposal capacity can be dropped from fur-
ther consideration at any time, but the acquisition of capacity by the counties
can only occur once. After the counties select their proposed sites, sites
eliminated from the inventory cannot be reconsidered for county acquisition
with regional funds at a later date. Therefore, the Council must make sure
that its forecast of required landfill capacity is sufficient to meet land dis-
posal needs through the year 2000.
The landfill development schedule is be based upon the Council"s waste genera-
tion and solid waste abatement projections. The volume of disposal capacity
needed is based on the waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule.
At the same time however, the region should avoid the implementation of new
capacity that is not needed in the immediate future. Excess capacity could
defer action on the implementation of alternative methods of waste management.
Remaining capacity should be kept below a certain level to help ensure that
landfilling is the solid waste management option of last resort and encourage
the development of abatement programs.
Currently, the Metropolitan Area is served by eight landfills located in four
of the seven counties. The southern portion of the region is saturated with
capacity whereas the northern portion has a paucity of capacity. Too few or a
poor distribution of landfills in the region could result in excessive haul
distances and leave the region vulnerable to interruptions in service if prob-
lems occurred at any of the sites. Sites must be distributed in such a way as
to best serve the region with a minimum number of sites.
The location of existing land disposal capacity and potential processing facili-
ties were used to determine where new facilities must be located in the
region. The Council will review the development schedule annually to make
adjustments to the schedule or the allocation of disposal capacity required.
Capacity cai be reduced if abatement facilities and programs exceed the objec-
tives of the waste reduction/resource recovery development schedule. In addi-
tion, an increase in landfill capacity of one county, due to an expansion of an
existing landfill or development of a new private landfill, will substitute for
the regional capacity needs.
Finally, the limited number of operating landfills in the future could mean
that individual sites may play an even more prominent role in the solid waste
system.
Landfills should operate long enough to avoid frequent turnover in sites. Land-
fills should not be operational for such a length of time that they are per-
ceived as conflicting with Council policy that landfilling be an interim land
use. However, landfills accepting only residuals from processing facilities
fi]
will have significantly less nuisance impacts on adjacent properties. A land-
fill of significant size that accepts only residuals could be in operation for
much longer than ten years.
LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Table 4-12 displays the the amount of solid waste that the Council estimates
each county will need to landfill assuming the waste reduction/recovery sched-
ule is implemented. Several assumptions provide the basis for calculating the
volumes estimated in Table 4-12. Residuals will be produced from any recovery
technology due to facility downtime, materials rejected because they are not
marketable, or ash from energy recovery combustion. For the period from 1985
through 1990, it is assumed that 40 percent of all waste handled by reduction/
recovery technologies will be returned as residuals still requiring landfill-
ing. For the period from 1991 through 2000, it is assumed that this rate is
lowered to 30 percent of the waste received will be returned as residuals due
to the development of complementing technologies such as co -composting and
energy recovery.
Total landfill capacity needed for the region from 1985 through the year 2000
is 20,(')5 acre-feet. Currently the capacity of the existing landfills is
estimated at 13,360 acre-feet, not including any of the proposed expansions that
have approval decisions currently pending. Consequently, 7,245 acre-feet of
new canxcity is needed to meet the region's needs. The assumptions are that
unpra.. ed waste and residuals will require one -acre foot of landfill space
for evo..7 806.5 tons and existing landfill capacity remaining as of January 1,
1985 is 13,360 acre-feet.
Table 4-13 shows the landfill development schedule for each county in terms of
number and capacity of landfills. If -he need for new landfill space is
reduced, the capacity allocations will be adjusted accordingly. Also, it is
assumed that new landfills will be permitted in phases of capacity increments
that will allow for implementation of any reductions made to this development
schedule. The total regional capacity limitation of 7,245 acre-feet cannot be
exceeded. The capacity allocation to one county may be substituted as long as
there is a corresponding reduction of capacity in another county.
The opening dates in the development schedule should be considered as approxi-
mate guidelines for planning purposes. While the capacity allocations are
based on the region's needs through the year 2000, it is important to under-
stand that the life of the facilities could extend beyond that date. The
capacity allocated is for the disposal of residuals from waste processing and
recovery activities. To allow for the development of large-scale, centralized
processing facilities, however, short-term disposal of unprocessed waste on an
interim basis may be approvaole in some circumstances. Alternatives for as
much of the capacity as possible must be pursued by the Council and the metro-
politan counties. While this capacity may be best suited for disposal of resi-
duals, recycling of the ash may further reduce the needed landfill capacity.
Also development of private sites may reduce needed capacity.
IA
u
Table
4-12
ESTIMATED
SOLID HASTE
REMAINING
AFTER REDUCTIONAECOYERY
(in
thousands
of tons)
1991-
1996-
Cumulative
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1995
2000
1985-2000
Anoka
155
156
157
154
136
72
283
305
1,418
Carver
27
26
27
27
24
13
53
61
258
Dakota
172
174
178
177
164
82
341
389
1,677
Hennepin
995
982
976
962
880
424
1,618
1,672
8,509
Ramsey
466
455
435
430
266
194
729
734
3,709
Scott
32
33
33
33
32
17
67
73
320
Washington
73
74
76
73
54
—
40
—
161
176
727
Metropolitan
Area
1,920
1,900
1,882
1,856
1,556
842
3,252
3,410
16,618
Table 4-13
LANDFILL OEVEIOPMENT SCHEDULE
Number of
Capacity
r oposed
Sites for
of Site
Opening
County
Development
ire -feet
Date
Anoka
One
3,000
1987
Carver
None
Dakota
None
Hennepin
One
2,245
1991
Ramsey
None
Scott
None
Washington
One
22.000
1995
Regional Total
Three
7,245
The landfill capacity for Anoka County was allocated based on the acute need
for additional capacity in the northern part of the region. There is currently
only one mixed municipal solid waste landfill in the county that serves the
reggion and it is anticipated to reach its permitted capacity by the end of
1986.
The landfill capacity for Hennepin County was allocated because of the need to
provide adequate disposal for resdivals to help assure the success of any pro-
posed Hennepin County recovery project.
The new landfill capacity allocation for Washington County imrlies that the
Lake Elmo candidate site would be developed since it is the only site in the
inventory in that county. Development of this site is scheduled for 1995
because existing capacity in the southern portion of the region will adequately
serve the disposal needs until then. The Lake Elmo site is located .ntirely
within the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
ACQUISITION PROCEDURES
Figure 4-2 is a map showing the candidate landfill sites in the regional inven-
tory. As described in part 1 of this plan, these potential sites were selected
by the counties and/or the Council as required by the Waste Management f
The counties allocated capacity in the landfill development schedule mu'
select the final sites from the approved candidate site inventory or through
private site development. For counties that are not allocated capacity for
future development, the county inventory is terminated.
After the counties allocated capacity as shuwn in Table 4-13. determine ade-
quacy of their environmental impact statements (EISs) of the sites within their
inventory, each county must establish a site selection authority. The site
selection authority is canpd;ed of the county board plus one member appointed
4t
, _.
METROPOLITAN COUNTIES' CANDIDATE SANITARY LANDFILL SITES
June 1984. Oak Grove
k
Afto— co
. Coon Rapids i
Dayton ....... .,..w I � � .... ...
Greenlfele "' ""' w•s,warox co
Inds endence` �'y .• a+. ""'�•"
94......... r " 1 Lake Elmoe,...,
(T
Chaska/Laketown '••''^
=-(C) .. _...
L___ Laketown ■Chanhassen
C••xu (a) D
__r___-_r_ __
r -,
"thl r _ Rosemount ■
...... .. (U) - Louisville i— (D) .. ,. ...
T - -., �{ 7Emove/Rosemount ,
.... .... x,,..o Soo Laker -.. -.,
New Market
Hampton
6:
by the governing body of each city or town within the county containing a site
in the Council's disposal site inventory. The authority must select specific
sites to meet the number and capacity required by the Council's development
schedule within 90 days of the determination that the EISs are adequate. If
the site selection authority does not select the requisite number and capacity
of sites, by law the Council must make the final selection.
Counties are required to acquire property and rights in property at and around
each land disposal facility selected by the county. Sites scheduled for devel-
opment before 1990 must be acquired in fee. Development rights must be
acquired for all sites including fill and buffer areas scheduled for develop-
ment after 1990 through the year 2000. Owners of property for which the devel-
opment rights are to be acquired may elect to have the county acquire fee title
to the property if they notify the county in writing within 90 days following
the issuance of a permit by the MPCA.
The site selection for disposal facilities by the public is not intended to
preclude the potential for future development of landfill sites by the private
sector. However, potential private disposal facilities must be incorporated
into the schedule for development of disposal facilities within the region.
Private development of land disposal facilities could substitute for county
disposal facilities. The schedule for development of capacity at county sites
could be adjusted in response to private land disposal proposals.
POSTCLOSURE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSITION
Once the capacity of a land disposal facility is exhausted, the facility must
be closed. The facility must be closed to ensure that the facility protects the
public health and environment. The proper closure of facilities and their main-
tenance after closure must be planned for well before the facility reaches its
capacity. The cost of closure and postclosure activities must be considered to
ensure an adequate sun of money for these activities long after the facility no
longer receives an income from tipping fees.
Proper closure and postclosure care is required to maintain the physical
integrity of the landfill. Because landfills can leak pollutants long after
their active life, the proper equipment must be installed nad maintained to
ensure accurate monitoring of the fill and environment around it. Adequate
closure and postclosure maintenance minimizes the potential for significant
pollution problems in the future. Advanced warning of a failure of a liner
or other pollution problem means that remedial actions can be taken before the
problem becomes widespread and more costly to control.
Rules for the proper care and maintenance of facilities are being prepared by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Additional requirements on financial
responsibility and liability will be forthcoming. Nevertheless, counties
should take an active role in assuring that disposal facilities will not become
an excessive burden upon county budgets. County ordinances should specify the
conditions or requirements that land disposal facility owners and operators are
expected to meet to ensure proper closure and postclosure maintenance.
The end uses for landfills are limited, falling into three major categories:
agriculture, commercial or industrial uses, and recreational open space.
Design and construction constraints may prevent the construction of buildings
.,,lon the fill area or within the buffer area a certain distance from the fill
area. All of the existing fills take mixed wastes resulting in the generation
n;:
of methane gas which coupled with settling may constrict the potential for
development. In addition, there are uncertainties about the consequences,
liabilities and costs of remedial actions if the landowners of the end use
building or activity differ from the landfill owners and operators.
Despite these limitations, closed landfills could support end uses that require
large acreages with a use of low intensity. Examples of these end uses include
amphitheatres or sites for festivals or fairs, botanical gardens, golf courses,
municipal or county parks, ski slopes, Department of Natural Resources manage-
ment areas for selected types of wildlife, state or regional parks, airports,
drive-in theatres, scrap or salvage yards, low -intensity industrial uses,
antennae farms, feed lots, agricultural research areas or poultry farms. Dis-
posal facilities accepting residuals only may have more structural integrity
and could increase the number of potential end uses. The end use should be
considered in the context of limiting conflict with the surrounding land use
during the landfill's operation. In addition the end use must be compatible
with the closure and postclosure requirements.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COSTS
COSTS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM
The existing solid waste management system consists primarily of collection,
transportation and land disposal. The annual cost to the household for this
system is approximately $95 in the Metropolitan Area. The collection, trans-
portation and land disposal components of this system represent approximately
75, 15 and 10 percent, respectively, of the household refuse bill.
Costs of the system for the commercial and industrial sector are not readily
broken down. Rather, costs are functions of size and types of disposal con-
tainers, weight of the refuse and haul distance to the landfill. In most cases
the collection and disposal costs are about 40 percent and 60 percent, respec-
tively of the commercial or industrial generators refuse bill.
Tipping fees at existing landfills range from S10412 per ton for refuse. Fees
for special wastes such as demolition debris may vary. Surcharges will
increase tipping fees in 1985.
There are several recycling programs operating in the region. All of them are
paid for by the city or county as a service to their residents. Costs for
these programs range from S12414 per ton of recyclables collected.
COSTS OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM
Overview
The transition from the existing land disposal system to a system that empha-
sizes waste reduction and resource recovery will increase the costs of waste
management to the generator. These costs will come about as a consequence of
constructing and operating a variety of waste processing facilities and recycl-
ing programs. Given the regional goal that by 1990 land disposal must accept
only processed waste, many facilities and programs must be in place in the
region by 1990 to handle the vol one of waste generated. The new element could
increase household disposal costs by about $30 to $55 from its current $95
annual cost.
6
Table 4-14 identifies the capital and annual operating costs for typical capac-
ities of facilities and programs that could be expected for development in the
region (see the development programs for waste reduction and resource
recovery). The annual operating cost includes the debt service which has been
amortized over 20 years.
Costs For The Waste Reduction and Resource Recovery System, 1990
A waste management system tf,at could meet that goal is presented in Table 4-15.
The proposed waste management system includes combustion facilities, composting
sites for yard waste, co -composting facilities, transfer stations, region -wide
source separation programs and three new landfills.
By far the most expensive waste facilities are the combustion units, either
mass burn or RDF. The primary costs for combustion units are for the boilers,
heat recovery systems and pollution control equipment. Some savings on capital
expenditures are realized if existing boilers are retrofitted to burn RDF. The
combustion and processing components of the waste reduction/resource recovery
development program will cost about $220 million.
The co -composting component of the waste reduction and resource recovery devel-
opment program calls for two co -composting facilities to manage the heavy
organic residue from RDF facilities. These facilities are less costly to con-
struct and operate than the combustion facilities. Total capital cost for two
co -composting facilities with a capacity of 300-600 tons per day are about $40
million.
The region will also need many sites to compost yard and garden wastes. The
most significant cost of these facilities are the operating costs. There is
little capital cost involved based on a system that utilizes available public
land. County or local public works departments are likely operators of these
facilities.
Recycling programs and facilities, similar to yard and garden waste composting
facilities, have greater operating costs than capital costs. By far, the
largest cost of recycling programs are the collection costs. One or two recy-
clables processing facilities are needed in the region !, manage daily about
1,000 tons of recyclables. Capital costs for equipmen,d recyclable process-
ing facilities are about S7.5 million. Existing recy ie processing opera-
tions could be used, expanded or modified thereby redu ng public costs.
Several transfer stations will likely be needed within the region to consoli-
date waste or recyclables for shipment to processing facilities. It is diffi-
cult to determine the number of facilities that will be needed until the other
centralized processing facilities are located. Occasionally, the transfer
stations may be physically linked with the RDF processing facilities. For
planning purposes the waste recovery/resource recovery development program
estimates that five transfer stations would be built that would handle about
500 tons per day.
The total capital costs of the proposed system are about $345 million. Annual
operating costs are about $122 million. The annual household cost for refuse
disposal would increase by about $30 to $55 from the current annual cost of
$95. The commercial and industrial sector would incur an overall increase of
about $34 million or $35 per ton for refuse disposal assuming one-half of the
waste generated in the region is of commercial or industrial origin.
Table 4-14
ESTIMATED SOLID WASTE FACILITY AND PROGRAM COSTS
(All Figures In 1984 Dollars)
Annual -
Type of Facility
Capacity
Capital Costs
Operating Costs
n
s
to s
RDF Facilities)
- Dedicated Boilers
600-2000
TPD
45,D00-120,000
15,000-25,000
- Existing Boilers
600-1000
TPO
20,000-
35,000
10,D00-15,000
Mass Burn Facilities
- Steam
250-1000
TPD
25,000-
75,ODO
3,500-25,000
- Co -Generation
600-1DOO
TPD
55,000-
85,000
15,D00-25,000
- Electricity
600-1000
TPD
50 DOD-
75,DO0
15,000-25,0DO
- Modular
50- 150
TPD
3,000
200- 350
Composting Facilities
- Leaf
900
TPY
10
- Sludge/Leaf
300- 300
TPO
450-
15,000
400- 4,000
Co-Compostin ilities3
- Sludge/r .,;u solid waste
300- 600
1PO
20,000-
40,000
5,000-10,000
Transfer Stations
400- 600
TPD
3,000
750- 2,D00
Recyclables Processing5
50- 150
TPD
300-
700
2DO- 1,000
Landfills
- Existing
40- 80
Acres
- Second Generation6
40- 160
Acres
6,000-
4,500
2,500-10,000
sources:
2Ramsey/Washington Counties.
3Ramsey/Washington, Dakota and Hennepin Counties.
4Ramsey County Resource Management Associates, CAL Recovery Systems, Inc.
Delaware Solid Waste Authority, BF] Waste Systems, Marcel Dekker Inc., Ramsey/
Washington Counties.
6Recycling Unlimited, Ramsey County, Pope -Reid Associates Inc.
Donahue and Associates.
20-year debt service included.
71
Table 4-15
RESOURCE
RECOVERY SYSTEMS: A SCENARIO
FOR 1990
(All Costs In
1984 Dollars)
Yearly2
Gross3 Transportation3
Estimated
LomOonentsl
Capacities
CaPital2
Operating
Cost and
Collection
Revenue
Net Costa
Net Costa
System
Costs
Costs
Per Ton Cost
Per Ton
Per Ton
Per Ton
Per Household
Mass Burn: 1 Facility
Steam
1.000 TPD
i 75,000
S 25,000
S75
S45.60
SIS
S105-120
SISS-115
or Co -generation
1.000 TPD
85,000
25,000
80
45-60
30
95-110
140-160
or Electricity
1,000 TPO
75,000
25,DDO
75
45-60
25
95-110
140-160
RDF: 3 Facilities
Dedicated Boiler
900 TPD
70,000
25,000
80
45-60
20
105-120
155-175
and 2 Existing Boilers
800 TPD
35,000(ea)
15,D00(ea)
50
45-60
15
80-95
115-140
Composting
Yard Waste
50,000 TPY
----5
4,000
i5
45-60
0
60-75
90-110
Co -composting:
2 facilities
S IWBe/I45W
300 TPO
20,000
5.000
15
45-60
0
60-75
90-�10
Sludge/MSW
300 TP0
20,000
5.000
15
45-60
0
60-75
90-
l0
Transfer Stations:
5 Stations
500 TPD (ea)
3,00(1
1,500(ea)
15
45.60
0
60-75
90-110
Recycling: 30-60% Par.
Processing Facility
1,000 TPO
5,000 (ea)
7.000
15
45-60
20
40-55
60-80
Landfills: 3 Sites
Second Generations
20,000 (ea)
2,500 (ea)
15-20
4545=60
60-80
90-125
Total System:
5.400 TPO
$345,000
$122,500
$507
$45-607
S207
$80-1007
S115--1407
1 Sources of cost Intonation listed in
Table 4-14.
2 In $1,000s.
S Amounts rounded to
nearest $5. No
profits or avoided costs included. Surcharges
are included on landfill
costs. Estimated revenues
are Protect specific
4
and could vary.
Assuming each household
produces 1.46
tons of solid waste Per year.
6 Minimal capital costs
6
are amortized into
operation costs.
Assuming a 5-foot clay liner, a 40.80
acre site, 10-mile
clay haul distance,
no synthetic liners.
Weighted average of their
respective
columns based on
throughput of each facility.
Note: Gross cost per ton Is equal to yearly debt service
plus Operating
costs divided
by waste throughput per year. Net cost per ton is
equal to gross cost per
ton plus transportation and collection
cost per
ton minus estimated
revenues
per ton.
Net cost per
household Is
equal to net cost per ton
multiplied by
1.46 tons per household
per year.
Costs for the Land Disposal System, 1990
The land disposal development program estimates that three new landfills are
needed in the region to meet disposal needs until the year 2000. Each landfill
is estimated to cost about $20 million. Each landfill is required to construct
a leachate collection system above a clay liner. The greatest cost of the new
landfills is the construction of the clay liner and leachate collection sys-
tem. Additional costs may be incurred if the clay for the liner must be
imported to the site.
The land disposal costs include preparation of the EIS, pre -development, liner
and leachate collection systems, closure and postclosure monitoring and mainte-
nance for a 20-year period. Closure costs include a gas -collection system.
Post closure costs include a lump sum payment for environmental liability insur-
ance. The costs of remedial actions that may be necessary are not included.
The Council has $15 million bonding authority to purchase land for development
of the new landfills or development rights for the landfills to be developed
after 1990. The bonding authority can be used to finance the preparation of
environmental assessments of the candidate landfill sites. The Council must
assess the counties to retire the bond debt, but assessment does not apply to
cities or towns in which a solid waste disposal facility is operating after
Jan. 1, 1980. In addition, cities or towns with waste reduction or resource
recovery facilities or programs established pursuant to a county land disposal
abatement plan are el;gible for a reduced payment, proportional to the
abatement.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
A wide variety of financing tools are available to fund resource recovery facil-
'ties and source separation programs. Types of financing include general obli-
gation bonds; revenue bonds; leverage leasing; municipal lease purchase;
grants, loans and loan guarantees; and surcharges. Table 4-16 identifies the
types of financing that could be used by counties and municipalities to finance
proposed waste facilities and programs.
General obligation financing by a municipality, coonty, authority, or state
government is usually the lowest cost debt instrument in terms of interest rate
available. The advantages of this financing method are its relatively low
interest rate, and hence, debt service and the relative simplicity of the
required institutional arrangements. Disadvantages include high -risk exposure
to the issuing entity and its taxpayers, the elimination of facility tax pay-
ments because of public ownership, and the unavailablity of federal tax bene-
fits available to private owners of resource recovery facilities.
There are a number of kinds of revenue bonds that can be used to finance a
resource recovery facility. They utilize project revenues (tipping fees, recov-
ered material and energy sales, etc.) as the primary source of bond repayment.
Revenue bonds can be issued for the purpose of creating industrial development
in a community (industrial development bonds, nr IDBs) or for building pollu-
tion control equipment (pollution control revenue bonds ur Pr,ABS). Because the
private corporation assumes the risks, potential buyers will scrutinize the
corporation's credit worthiness. The advantages of this financing form inciuue
a shift of the majority of project risks away from the municipality, the pay-
ment of property and income taxes by the operators, and certain federal tax
benefits to the corporation if it is a resource recovery facility.
V
aw
table a-16
IETHOOS OF FINANCING
Types of Financing
Description
Use
Advantages
Disadvantages
General Obligation
'Full Faith and Nigh
b to. Tech
Low Interest rates
Taxpayer risk
Credit'
Sim Is institutional
No taxes from the public facility
Public Financing
arrangements
No federal tax benefits from private
ownership
Revenue Goods
Public financing Mostly
High Tech
Private ownership
Nigh t-ch projects are of higher risk to
Pledging project
Federal tax benefits
private Investors
revenues
Non-profit Public
Government backed
Law Interest rates
Facility not an tax rolls
corporation
non-profit Corp.
Excise tea backing
No federal private ownership tax bOW'Its
with excise
No refereadon
tax
Industrial revenue
Public issue without
bonds
excise tax backing
Tex-exaeat entity
No excise tax backing
Nigher interest rates
Taxable entity
Public Issue on behalf
Private risk
Higher interest rates
of a private corpora-
Tex intone for the public
The U.S. Congressional telling
tlon as a lean
Federal private ownership
tax benefits
Leverage Leasing
private ownership of
High b Low Tech
Shared risk
A Cory lex legal structure
large share with
Tax income for public
Public or private
Reduced done issue
operators
Federal private ownership
Public or private
tax benefits
operator,
Public ownership of the
renainlaq share
Municipal Lease
100% private ownership
High b low Tech
Private risk
Tax status in question
Purchase
with public opera-
To. Income for public
tors
No bond Issue
Federal private ownerihip
tax benefits
Grants/loans/Loan
Public gifts and loan
Mostly Law Tech
Risk placed easily with
Possible long -tern funding necessary
backing
private owners
necessary
Surcharges
Taxes favoring
Mostly Low Tech
A public policy tool
Possible Public funding of the inefficient
resource recovery
SE1657-PNENV2
12.07.84
The U.S. Congress has imposed a ceiling on IDB expenditures of $150 per resi-
dent from Jan. 1, 1985 and $100 after 1986. For Minnesota, the 1985 ceiling is
$619 million. Beginning in 1986, the ceiling is $412 million. This ceiling
seriously affects the financing of resource recovery facilities particularly
waste combustion facilities. Proposals to finance resource recovery facilities
with IDBs must now compete with other development proposals. Consequently,
other less desirable methods of financing resource recovery facilities may have
to be used.
Other financing mechanisms include leverage leasing, municipal lease purchases
and grants or loans. The Waste Management Board has the authority to provide
grants and loans for the development of resource recovery facilities. The
Council will receive monies from surcharges on disposal fees at metropolitan
landfills. These monies will be used to provide grants and loans to public and
private entities to develop facilities and source separation programs (see Part
5 of this guide). In addition, the counties have the authority to place a
surcharge on disposal fees at landfills within their jurisdiction and these
monies could be used for various facilities and programs.
Two underlying issues affect financing decisions: the risk inherent in the pro-
ject and the investment; and the amount of government participation desired in
the projectes financing. The major risks of any given security arise from the
projectes technology, the projectes markets and end -product market price, assur-
ance of municipal solid waste input, accuracy of the projected cash flows, abil-
ity to meet principal and interest payments, and promised return on invest-
ment. Public participation may be necessary to ease perceived risk by
investors.
The financial arrangements of existing resource recovery facilities throughout
the nation favor private investment, IOBs and government obligation (GO)
bonds. Nation-wide trends have been away from grants and GO bonds and towards
multiple -source financing, of which a blend of private investment and IDBS is
favored.
75
PART 5: PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES
OVERVIEW
The Council will use a number of approaches to implement the guide (see Figure
5-1). They include:
1) Reviewing county and local solid waste plans and annual reports;
2) Reviewing various aspects of waste facility projects;
3) Monitoring and oversight activities; and
4) Technical and financial assistance programs.
The Waste Management Act requires the metropolitan counties to prepare solid
waste management master plans that implement the Council's solid waste guide.
The master plans must describe specific projects and activities, and certain
information on specific financial commitments and implementation schedules.
The master plans can be developed either as an element of county comprehensive
land use plans required under the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, or as
separate documents. The counties are also required to submit annual reports to
the Council on their solid waste management activities. The reports must
describe the progress being made with implementation activities and provide the
Council with information to update regional system data bases. The Council has
authority to a) establish content requirements for the master plans and annual
reports and b) review and decide whether the plans and reports are consistent
with the Council's guide policies and programs.
Although not required by the Waste Management Act, cities and townships in the
Metropolitan Area will be encouraged to prepare solid waste elements to their
comprehensive plans prepare under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Such
plan elements can help guide the development of local waste management projects
and services. The Council will assist local communities with such plan
amendments.
The Waste Management Act requires the Council to review various waste facility
projects and proposals. The reviews serve as important devices to implement
the guide chapter and resolve potential policy conflicts. The Council must
review:
1) Waste facility permit applications;
2) Waste supply and processing contracts;
3) Waste district proposals;
4) Waste flow designation proposals; and
5) Certificate of Need requests.
The appendix describes specific requirements and criteria that will be used
for the reviews.
76
Lone DMPcuI
Do.lopmanl Prosnm
Celetty Environmental
Impact Statement.
V
J
Final $11.
Selection
Revisw Mechanisms.
Permits/
cvttiltate. of Need
Figure 5-1. REGIONAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
I REGIONAL SOLID WASTE POLICY PLAN
Waste Reduction and Resovice Reoewry
D.v.loPMOM PfeWSM
any
Muter Plans
Local
Comarshenalve PNn,
Revhw Mechanisms. Permits.
Waste Flow Desltswtlons.
Contracts. Wash D4Irlc1.
IMBVOp011t.n T¢nnlGal
and Flnanclal
1 Aaslstmnc. Program
!mol.mentatlen
Cry Areeal Report.
R.porla /e
L.11N.nw fe 1041-
on Waste M.nag.m.M
CoM•gency
Proce
The Council will monitor and oversee, in particular, progress in implementing
the waste reduction/resource recovery and land disposal development programs in
Part 4 of the guide. The Council will track progress through its review func-
tions and by holding periodic meetings and public forums with local officials
and waste management industry representatives. The Council will undertake
contingency procedures if the development programs are not being implemented or
implementation is proceeding slowly.
To help implement the development programs, the Council will provide technical
assistance and financial resources through its solid waste assistance program.
The program will provide information and technical support as well as loans and
grants to help establish specific waste management facilities and programs.
Assistance will be available to eligible recipients in both the public and
private sectors.
REVIEW PROCEDURES
The Council will review plans or proposals submitted to it for consistency with
the policies and criteria in this guide. The following procedures will
generally be used when plans or proposals are received for review:
1. All known affected and interested parties will be notified.
2. If necessary, a public hearing on the proposal or document will be held.
3. Not less than 30 days before a public hearing, the Council will publish a
notice in a newspaper(s) having general circulation in the Metropolitan
Area, stating the date, time and place of the hearing, and the place where
the project information or document may be examined by interested people.
4. The hearing will be conducted according to Council procedures. All inter-
ested people will be permitted to present their views on the proposal or
project.
5. The Council's Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee will review
the proposal and make recommendations to the Council.
6. The advisory committee will concluda its review in sufficient time to allow
the recommendations to be discussed and considered by the appropriate
commissions and standing committees of the Council.
7. To the extent appropriate, the Council will conduct its review concurrent
with and complementary to reviews by other goverrmenta' jurisdictions.
In , Ition to these general procedures, other procedures and guidelines will
be wed by the Council as required by the WMA.
COL AND LOCAL PLAN REVIEWS AND PLAN CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
COUNTY MASTER PLANS
Each metropolitan county must prepare and submit to the Council a sol .,. waste
master plan within nine months after the Council adopts its solid waste policy
plan. If the Council disapprov^s a master plan, the county must submit a
revised plan within 90 days for Council approval.
711
The Council will review county master plans in accordance with the requirements
of Minn. Stat., section 473.175 and 473.823. Master plans must: 1) conform to
and implement the Council's solid waste guide, including system plan policies
and development program requirements and time schedules; 2) be consistent with
other adopted chapters of the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide and
metropolitan system plans; and 3) be compatib a -with each other.
The Council recognizes that intercounty and local jurisdictional cooperation is
necessary to implement many of the waste management strategies. The Council
encourages the counties to work together in preparing the master plans and to
consult with cities and towns. The counties are encouraged to prepare the
master plans as the solid waste element of their comprehensive land use plans
to help ensure consistency with county and local land use policy and public
services.
Plan Content Requirements
County master plans must be comprehensive and clearly describe county policies,
plans and implementation strategies. The plans must describe specific projects
and activities the county, cities and townships within the county and the
private sector will implement and the financial and other resource commitments
to those projects and activities. At a minimum, the plans must provide
following information:
Plan Preparation
1. A description of the plan preparation process, including the role of county
advisory committees and the number of public meetings and hearings; and
2. Evidence that all municipalities and towns within the county were consulted
in the preparation of the plan; and
3. a schedule for plan revisions.
Description of Existing System
1. Solid waste generation characteristics, including the quantity and composi-
tion of waste by class of generator and patterns of waste generation
(seasonal, geographic area);
2. The solid waste collection system in the county, including the type of ser-
vices provided (mixed vs. separated waste) and hauling arrangements;
3. EvLing private, local, and county programs, functions, facilities and
activities for solid waste reduction, source separation, processing and
land disposal in the county, including locations, use rates, operating
characteristics and user charges, and remaining capacity estimates for land
disposal facilities; and
4. County and municipal enforcement authorities, including licensing
requirements, ordinances, and permit requirements.
Statement of Solid Waste Management Policies and Objectives
1. County policies for waste reduction, source separation, waste processing
and land disposal for 1985 through 2000; and
7V
2. Quantifiable county objectives (stated in tons annually through 1990 and in
five-year increments thereafter through 2000) for waste reduction, source
separation, waste processing and land disposal.
Description of Plans, Programs and Facilities for 1985 to 2000
1. Management alternatives (source separation, waste reduction, processing,
transfer stations, waste CMDUstion and land disposal) from 1985 through
2000 including:
- The facility or py activity, including potential lo..ations, volumes
and types of waste. .solved, service areas, estimated capital costs,
rates and charges, annual operating and maintenance costs and annual
gross revenues;
- Implementation procedures, including planning, operating, ownership and
financing arrangements and marketing approach; for facilities that will
be acquired by the county, provide the estimated cost, methods, and time
of acquisition, procedures for operation and maintenance, and a capital
improvements program; for land disposal facilities, provide a
description of how the county will evaluate and select sites to be
implemented;
- The relationship of the facility or program activity to other management
alternatives;
- How existing facilities and services will or may be used to implement
the plan;
- The economic effects of the program activity or facility on residential,
commercial and industrial waste generators; and
- Contingency procedures for situations when the management alternative
cannot be implemented or are temporarily out of service, and when they
would be undertaken;
2. Public, private and intergovernmental coordination and support
activities, including:
- Program for data collection and analysis on waste generation and
characterization;
- Process for public comment and participation during planning and project
development;
- Criteria and standards to protect comparable existing and planned
private and public facilities from unwarranted displacement;
- Efforts to encourage private operation and/or ownership of facilities;
- Role of local governments in county programs, including a description of
city and town programs that would qualify for landfill abatement cost
recovery;
- Intercounty project efforts; and
- Use of Council and county technical and financial assistance programs.
80
3. Public education and information programs;
4. Role of waste flow designations; and
5. County and municipal enforcement activities, including monitoring programs,
and expected licensing and permitting requirements and ordinances.
LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
The Council encourages cities and townships to include a solid waste
management planning element in their comprehensive plans prepared under the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The solid waste element should be prepared in
consultation with counties and serve as an implementation guide for local waste
management activities. Local solid waste plans must be consistent with county
master plans. The solid waste element should describe:
1. Waste reduction, source separation, waste processing and land disposal
programs and activities in the city or town, including the types of
services provided, levels of recovery achieved by the programs, locations
of facilities, and user charges;
2. Proposed solid waste management program , functions, and activities, how
they complement the county's master plar and achieve the objectives in the
waste reduction/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of this
guide.
3. How existing or proposed solid waste facilities can be operated or devel-
oped so as to be compatible land use and public services; and
4. Local ordinances and controls regulating the transportation and collection
of solid waste; and ordinances regulating waste facilities.
Some local governments may not have the financinal resources, staff or exper-
tise to develop a solid waste element of their comprehensive plans. Counties
should be willing to help develop the plan element if necessary. Financial and
technical support for local programs and waste facilities will be available
from the Council, particularly if the local community has a solid waste element
in its comprehensive plan.
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
COUNTY ANNUAL REPORTS
The metropolitan counties are required to submit annually solid waste reports
to the Council for approval (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.803, subd. 3). The reports
must provide information on waste generation and management activities, as
well as progress in achieving the waste management policies and objectives in
the Council's guide chapter. The reports must be submitted on Feb. 1 and cover
the period of January through December of the previous year.
The annual reports must include information on the following:
1. Progress on implementing the Council's solid waste guide, including the
waste reduction and resource recovery and land disposal development
programs and schedules;
81
2. Current and proposed waste reduction, source separation, waste processing
and waste combustion programs in the county, including facilities and
services provided, reduction and recovery levels currently achieved or
proposed for each program, the types and volumes of materials handled and
the implementing agencies or private companies involved;
3. Rates and charges in effect or proposed for solid waste facilities and
collection services in the county, including a statement of the basis for
such charges for county -owned or -operated facilities;
4. Current receiving rates at all solid waste facilities in the county
(reported in tons);
5. General characteristics of solid waste received at waste facilities in the
county;
6. Remaining capacity and estimated life of land disposal facilities in the
county, reported in acre-feet and based on annual aerial surveys;
7. General condition, and proposed eapansior, of land disposal facilities in
the county;
8. Staff and budget committed to Implementing the county's solid waste program;
9. Progress on preparation of required revisions to the county master plan;
and
10. Involvement of cities, towns and school districts in waste management
activities, including local programs that qualify for landfill abatement
cost recovery under Minn. Stat., sec. 473.874, subd. 5.
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT
The state Legislative Commission on Waste Management oversees implementation of
the Waste Management Act, including the Metropolitan Area solid waste waste
planning process. The Council will report annually to the Legislative
Commission on progress implementing the guide chapter policies and programs.
The Council may recommend changes to the Waste Management Act in order to
implement the guider.
CONTINGENCY PROCEDURES
The Waste Management Act places implementation responsibility for solid waste
management in the Metropolitan Area primarily with the metropolitan counties.
The 1984 amendments to the act, however, require the Council's solid waste
guide to also set waste reduction and resource recovery objectives for cities
and towns in the region. With the 1984 change, the act seems to envision a
more deliberate, responsible role for local goverment. In order to assure
implementation occurs, the act has a number of contingency measures that change
county or local responsibilities if certain features of the law or the
Council's guide are not implemented.
The counties are responsible for selecting and acquiring land disposal sites
for implementation within their boundaries. They must establish site selection
authorities to choose the sites. If the site selection authority does not pro-
ceed in selecting the required number and capacity of sites in accordance with
8�
t 2 Council's land disposal development schedule and within the time frame
allowed under the Waste Management Act, the Council is required to select the
sites. If the counties fail to acquire the selected site, the Cuunril must
prepare legislation to transfer solid waste management authority and responsi-
bility in the Metropolitan Area from the counties to the Metropolitan Waste Con-
trol Commission or a new metropolitan commission established for that purpose.
The counties, cities and town.nips must achieve the objectives that have been
set in the Council's waste reduction and resource recovery development
schedule. If the Council determines that a county or city has not met the
objectives, the Council will report to the state legislature and submit
legislation that reassigns the waste management responsibilities among cities,
towns, counties, and metropolitan agencies so as to assure implementation of
Council and county solid waste plans and objectives.
The Council will determine if adequate progress on waste reduction and resource
recovery is being made by periodically evaluating county and local waste manage-
ment activities. In determining whether substantial progress has been made,
the Council will evaluate:
o Levels of waste reduction and resource recovery achieved in the region as
a whole and in subregional areas;
o Levels of waste reduction and resource recovery achieved in each county
and local unit of government for which specific objectives have been set;
and
o Evidence of county and local commitment to waste reduction and resource
recovery efforts, including commitments of financial and staff resources,
the status of programs and activities and the development of local plans
and other controls.
METROPOLITAN SOLID WASTE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
RESOURCE RECOVERY GRANTS AND LOANS
Beginning in January 1985, all landfills in the Metropolitan Area will charge
waste collectors an amount on their existing disposal fee, as required by the
1984 amendments to the Waste Management Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.843). A
portion of the funds will go to a Metropolitan Landfill Abatement fund. The
abatement fund will be administered by the Council for grants and loans for
resource recovery projects and activities and related public education and to
develop markets for reusable or recyclable waste materials.
The Waste Management Act authorizes that resource recovery grants and loans may
be made to any person and may include the costs of planning, acquisition of
land and equipment, capital improvements and public education expenses. The
Council is required to determine the total estimated capital costs of the
project and that full financing is available. Grants and loans made to cities,
counties and solid waste management districts must be in conformance with the
Council's solid waste guide chapter and approved county master plans. The
Council will develop guidelines and priorities for administering the landfill
Abatement Fund program.
P.?
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
The Council has established a technical assistance program to accelerate the
development of waste reduction and resource recovery projects and programs in
the Metropolitan Area. The assistance program is made up of staff from the
Council and will provide technical and planning help to counties, cities and
other groups.
The program initially will focus on efforts to divert recyclable materials and
yard wastes from landfills through recycling programs, mulching and compost-
ing. Assistance activities will include evaluating alternative reduction and
recycling methods and developing strategies to promote programs to policymakers
and the general public. The program will also provide information about waste
reuse and recovery techniques, serving as a clearinghouse for people who need
more information about these methods.
H4
DEFINITIONS
"Acre-foot" is a volume equal to 1,613 cubic yards. Based on Metropolitan
Council staff estimates, there are approximately 806.5 tons of waste received
at a landfill per acre-foot of landfill space used.
"Aluminum" is a light, grey nonferrous metal, typically discarded as scrap
beverage cans, house siding, cookingware, and furniture.
"Cities" means statutory and hone rule charter cities and towns authorized to
plan under Minn. Stat., secs. 462.351 to 462.364.
"Collection" when referring to solid and hazardous waste, means the aggregation
of solid or hazardous waste from the place where it is generated, and includes
all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a waste facility
(Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121).
"Commercial Agriculture Region" means the area currently expected to continue
in agricultural use indefinitely, as generally mapped on the Mttropolitan
Council's Development Framework. When the 1985 revisions to the Development
Framework Plan are complete, it is expected that this region will be redefined
as areas eligible for or in agricultural preserves.
"Commercial solid waste" includes solid waste generated by stores, offices,
businesses, restaurants, warehouses and other nonmanufacturing activities, and
nonprocess wastes such as office and packing wastes generated at industrial
facilities.
"Compostable yard waste" includes leaves, grass clippings and other organic
wastes from lawn and garden maintenance that can readily be transformed into a
useable soil amendment through controlled biological degradation.
"Composting" means the controlled biological decompositon of selected solid
waste in a manner resulting in a humus -like final product that can be used as a
soil amendment.
"Backyard composting" means small-scale composting of yard and garden
wastes by individual homeowners on their own property.
"Centralized composting" means composting of wastes on a larger scale, such
as at neighborhood or city-wide composting sites.
"Co -composting" is the composting of sewage sludge or septage with munici-
pal solid waste.
"Corrugated containers" consist of kraft linerboard cartons with corrugated
paper, typically used to ship materials. They do not include non -corrugated
containers such a chipboard or single -ply boxes (for example, a cereal
carton). Some cartons that are heavily coated or waxed and used to ship meats
and vegetables are not recycleable, and are classified as "other organics."
"Curb -side collection" means collection, at the point of generation, of recy-
clables or compostable materials.
85
"Construction and demolition wastes" include bricks, wood, paving, building
materials and rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and
demolition.
"Dedicated boiler" means a boiler designed and built to burn a specific fuel
such as refuse -derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste.
"Environmentally sensitive areas" includes areas that are important from an
ecological or natural resources management standpoint. They may include, but
are not limited to, protected wetlands, floodplains, and critical habitats of
endangered species. Areas specifically managed by a governmental agency or
private organization for their ecological values (for example, fish and wild-
life) constitute ecologically sensitive areas as well.
"Ferrous scrap" consists of scrap iron and steel items, including steel food
and beverage cans. Iron and steel scrap is any waste material to which a
magnet adheres. Bi-metal cans (ferrous cans with an alumnirm top) are classi-
fied as ferrous scrap, as is any item that is at least 15 percent ferrous by
volume. Stainless steel scrap (a shiny metal product used for its noncor-
rosive property and commonly found in appliances and kitchen counter tops) is
considered ferrous.
"Ferrous containers" are steel and bimetal food or beverage cans and small,
clean metal pails.
"Glass bottles and jars" consist only of glass, food and beverage containers.
"Hazardous waste" means any refuse or discarded material, or a combination of
refuse or discarded materials, in solid, semisolid, liquid, or gaseous form,
that cannot be handled by routine waste management techniques because it poses
a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or other living
organisms because of its chemical, biological or physical properties. Categor-
ies of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to explosives,
flammables, oxidizers, poisons, irritants and corrosives.
"Identified recoverable materials" or "identified recyclables" means materials
that can be separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their orig-
inal form or for use in manufacturing and which have been identified in the
Council's solid waste guide. (See Table 4-5)
"Industrial solid waste" is solid waste resulting from industrial processes and
manufacturing. It does not include hazardous wastes.
"Land disposal" means the depositing of waste materials in a sanitary landfill.
"Land disposal facility" means a waste facility permitted by WCA that is
designed or operated for the purpose of disposing of waste on or in the land.
"Land disposal site capacity" means the volume of space that is permitted to be
filled at a land disposal site.
"Leachate" is water that has percolated through, or has been in contact with,
solid wastes and contains waste contaminants removed from the solid wastes.
A6
"Local governmental unit" means any municipal corporation or gover-mental
subdivision other than a metropolitan county located in whole or part in the
Metropolitan Area, authorized by law to provide for the processing of solid
waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.802).
"Market development" means the location and facilitation of economic markets
for materials, substances, energy or other products contained within or derived
from waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.842, subd. 2).
"Mass -burn incinerator" means a solid waste combustion facility that is
designed to burn unprocessed mixed municipal waste.
"Metropolitan Area" or "region" means the area over which the Metropolitan
Council has jurisdiction, including the counties of Anoka, Carver Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.1211.
"Metropolitan counties" or "counties" refers to the seven counties of Anoka,
Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington.
"Metropolitan Council" or "Council" means the Metropolitan Council established
by Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121.
"Metropolitan Urban Service Area" is the portion of the Metropolitan Area in
which urban development or redevelopment exists or is planned.
"Mixed municipal solid waste" means garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from
residential, commercial, industrial and community activities that is generated
and collected in aggregate, but does not include auto hulks, street sweepings,
ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes,
tires, and other materials collected, processed and disposed of as separate
waste streams (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03, subd. 21).
"Mixed waste paper" consists of all short- and long -fiber papers that can be
repulped. It includes printing, writing, and computing papers, magazines, food
cartons, envelopes, grocery sacks and other commercial and residential waste
fiber. It does not include items contaminated by other materials such as metal
(an orange juice can), plastics (a envelope window, wax (milk carton) or other
nonpaper materials, or waste paper contaminated by food wastes.
"Mulching" means the use or placement of grass clippings or other organic mate-
rials over a lawn or garden so as to improve conditions for vegetative growth.
"Municipality" means a city created by or pursuant to state law.
"Newspaper" consists of printed, groundwood newsprint, including glossy adver-
tising inserts and Sunday -edition magazines.
"Organized collection" means a solid waste collection system wherein overlap of
a) collection service areas and b) types of collection services is prevented or
controlled. The organizing body may be public or private, and may exert its
control by directly providing the collection service or by contracting for
collection services.
"Other inorganics" consist of other noncombustible, nonmetallic material such
as rocks and ceramics.
R/
"Jther nonferrous" consists of metals such as copper, brass, zinc and lead
"Other organics" consist of conbustible and compostable waste not otherwise
categorized. They include food waste, plastics, rubber, textiles, leather and
paper that is not repulpable, as well as small quantities of other materials so
mixed as to not be recyclable.
"Participation rate" is the percent of eligible waste generators who regularly
participate in a given abatement program within a specified geographic area.
"Percolation" refers to the movement of a liquid through a porous substance,
that is, rainwater moving through solid waste in a landfill.
"Processed waste" means mixed municipal solid waste that has a) yard wastes and
identified recoverable materials removed and b) been subject to a process that
oxidizes part or all of its organic component or any other process resulting in
an organically stabilized materials.
"Processible waste" means waste materials that can be source separated or other-
wise reclaimed for their material or fuel value.
"Pyrolysis" is the physical and chemical decomposition of organic matter
brought about by the action of heat in the absence of oxygen.
"Reasonably available technologies" are state-of-the-art technologies that
have been applied at a commercial scale and could be implemented in a cost-
effective manner.
"Recovery rate" is the percent of material identified and available for waste
reduction or source separation that is actually recovered through a specific
abatement program.
"Recycleables" means materials that can be readily separated and used or reused
as a substitute for raw materials. They include, but are not limited to,
paper, glass, metals, automobile oil, and batteries.
"Refuse -derived fuel (ROF)" means the fraction of processed municipal waste
that is shredded and can be used as fuel in a boiler; it consists of lighter
weight materials such as paper products, with metals, glass, and other non-
combustible materials removed.
"Residential solid waste" means the oarbage, rubbish, trash and other solid
waste resulting from normal household activities.
"Residuals" means waste materials left after recovery of recycleables and
processing of remaining wastes.
"Resource conservation" means reducing the amounts of solid waste that are
generated, reducing overall resource consumption, and using recovered resources.
"Resource recovery" means the reclamation for sale or reuse of materials,
substances, energy, or other products contained within or derived from waste.
"Resource recovery facility" means a waste facility established and used
primarily for resource recovery.
HP,
"Sanitary landfilling" is a method of disposing of solid waste on land without
creating nuisances or hazards to public health or safety, by confining the
waste to the smallest practical areas, reducing it to the smallest practical
volume, and covering it with a layer of earth at the end of each day's
operation or more frequently if necessary.
"Secondary materials" are the marketable or usable products derived from solid
or hazardous waste through processing or separation.
"Sewage sludge" means the solid and associated liquids in municipal wastewater
that are encountered and concentrated by a municipal wastewater treatment plant
for disposal at a sewage sludge disposal facility. Sewage sludge does not
include sludge incinerator residues and grit, scum, screenings removed from
other solids during wastewater treatment.
"Solid waste" is garbage, refuse and other discarded solid materials. It
includes solid waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and agri-
cultural operations, and from community activities. Solid waste does not
include animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill, boulders, rock and other
materials normally handled in construction operations; solids or dissolved mate-
rial in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in water resources,
such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater effluents;
dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or other common water pollu-
tants (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Solid Waste Regulation No. 1).
"Solid waste management" means the systematic administration of activities that
provide for the collection, source separation, storage, transportation, trans-
fer, processing, treatment and disposal of solid waste.
"Source separation" means separation of recyclable or compostable materials by
the waste generator prior to collection.
"Special wastes" are nonhazardous wastes that are not classified as mixed muni-
cipal solid waste. They include, but are not limited to construction debris,
ash, street sweepings, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes and
tires.
"Storage" or "holding" means containment of solid or hazardous waste, in an
approved manner, after generation and before collection for ultimate recovery
or disposal.
"Transfer station" means an intermediate waste facility in which solid or
hazardous waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await
transportation to another waste facility (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03, subd. 3)
"Unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste" means mixed municipal solid waste
from which yard waste and identified recoverable materials have not been
excluded and which has not been subject to a process which oxidizes part or all
of its organic component or any other process resulting in an organically
stabilized residue.
"Unprocessible waste" means wade materials that cannot be source separated or
otherwise reclaimed for their material or fuel value.
"Waste flow designation" means a requirement by a waste management district or
county that all or any portion of the solid waste that is generated within its
boundaries or any service area thereof and is deposited within the state be
delivered to a resource recovery facility identified by the district or county
(Minn. Stat., sec.115A.81, subd. 2).
"Waste district" means a geographic area extending into two or more counties in
which the management of solid waste is vested in a special district established
pursuant to provisions of the Waste Management Act (Minn. Stat., sec. 115A.03,
subd. a2).
"Waste facility" means all property real or personal, including negative and
positive easements and water and air rights, that is or may be needed or useful
for the processing or disposal of waste, except property used primarily for the
manufacture of scrap metal or paper. Waste facilities include but are not
limited to transfer stations, processing facilities and disposal sites and
facilities.
"Waste management" means activities that are intended tc tect or control the
collection, processing and disposal of wastes.
"Waste reduction" is the process of reducing the amount of solid waste gene-
ated. It includes product reuse, increased product life, reduced material use
in product design, and decreased consumption of products.
"Windrow" means a method of centralized composting whereby materials are placed
in long rows and periodically turned.
"Wooden waste" consists of waste generated from tree trimming or cutting of
trees, and discarded lumber. The following items are included: tree trimmings
and shavings (wood chips), discarded lumber from home or commercial construc-
tion sites, and other miscellaneous wooden wastes.
"Yard waste" means leaves, grass clipp,ogs or other organic material created as
result of lawn and garden maintenance.
90
APPENDIX: REVIEW CRITERIA
INTRODUCTION
The Waste Management Act (WMA) authorizes the Metropolitan Council to review
and approve the following:
o Waste Facility Permit Applications;
o Waste Supply and Processing Contracts;
o Waste District Proposals;
o Waste Flow Designation Proposals; and
o Certificates of Need
The Council will use the review mechanisms as one method to implement the guide
chapter. Criteria are provided in this section for conducting the reviews with
the exception of certificates of need (CON). Review criteria for CONS will be
added to the guide chapter after the Council approves required revisions to
county solid waste master plans.
Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact the Council before preparing
and submitting review requests. The information and data necessary for the
review can be discussed.
WASTE FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
OVERVIEW
A waste management facility consists of all property and easements used to
store, process and dispose of solid waste. Waste facilities include transfer
stations, storage facilities, land disposal sites and waste processing facili-
ties such as resource recovery facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.121, subd.
29). They do not include property used to collect waste of facilities used to
process scrap metal, paper, glass or other materials separated from the mixed
waste stream.
Council approval is required before a waste facility in the Metropolitan Area
can be issued a permit to operate by the MPCA. The Council has 60 days to
reach its decision, unless a time extension is granted by the MPCA. In its
review the Council can specify conditions to be incorporated by the agency's
permit.
To obtain Council approval, permit applications for proposed waste facilities
must be consistent with the criteria in this section of the guide chapter. The
WMA rquires the Council"s plan for solid waste management to include criteria
that address the following aspects of proposed waste facilities:
o Waste Management Service Impacts;
0 Capacity;
o Processing Techniques;
W
o Location;
o Environmental Impacts;
o Operations;
o Competitive Operation; and
o Economic Effects.
Council approval may be sub„ect to conditions necessary to satisfi the criter-
ia. Where appropriate, some criteria may be met in accordance wi,.h authority
granted local units of government to place restrictions and conditions on waste
facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811, subd. 4a). Ultimately, facility
approval will depend on whether the proposed facility meets applicable federal,
state and local regulations.
WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE IMPACTS
In the Metropolitan Area, waste management services are largely provided by the
private sector. Solid waste is collected primarily by private licensed haulers
who have contracts with individual, municipalities and industries. Landfills
are operated by large national waste management companies and by small local
businesses. The WMA encourages provision of services by the private sector.
The orderly transition from land disposal to waste reduction and resource recov-
ery requires that solid waste services continue to be provided efficiently and
economically throughout the region. To assure consistency with the Regional
System Plan in Part 4 of the guide chapter it may be necessary to stage develop-
ment of solid waste services. Waste materials, volumes and supply areas may
also have to be restricted. The WMA provides the Council authority to place?
(1) conditions or restrictions regarding the type, character and quantities of
waste to be processed at a waste facility that is used primarily for resource
recovery and (2) restrictions on the geographic territory from which a waste
facility used primarily for resource recovery may draw its waste (Minn. Stat.,
sec. 473.823, subd. 3).
Objectives
la. Ensure the efficient and orderly transition from land disposal to waste
reduction and resource recovery.
lb. Ensure that adequate solid waste supplies are available for development of
solid waste facilities.
Criteria
la. Proposed waste facility service areas shall be consistent wit. the land
disposal and waste reduction/resource recovery development schedules in
Part 4 of the guide chapter. Waste supply projections for facility service
areas shall be based on estimates that reflect the potential combined
effects of other preferred waste management practices as determined by the
waste reduction/resource recover) -velopment schedule. facility operation
may be delayed ay.d/or staged to ret sectthe development schedule. Restric-
tions ma, he placed on the type, character, quantities and geographic
territory of waste supplies for resource recovery facilities.
M
Ib. The quantity and composition of solid waste within the proposed waste
facility's service area shal' be sufficient to enable economic feasibility
of the facility.
CAPACITY
Waste facility capacity iroacts w,.:te management service conditions in the
region. Service costs, site noera`.ions and alternative management methods are
affected by the amount and type of ,^-rating system capacity.
Facility capacities that exceed the requirements of the waste reduction/
resource recovery and land disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide
chapter may prevent or constrain the development of other preferred waste
management methods. For instance, excess land disposal capacity may perpetuate
commitment to a less preferred management practice. Limitations on maximum
capacity will, therefore, be necessary.
Waste facility capacity must ensure continuous, efficient service. Some degree
of redundancy is needed to ensure the facility can handle seasonal and other
variations in waste flow. In addition, waste processing facilities must have
sufficient capacity to meet the requirements of energy and/or materials market.
Objectives
2a. Ensure that waste facility capacities meet efficient, economical service
requirements.
2b. Ensure that waste facility capacities promote adaptable systems of waste
management and orderly transition to waste reduction and resource recovery.
Criteria
2a. Proposed waste facility capacities shall be consistent with the waste
reduction/resource recovery and land disposal development schedules in Part
4 of the guide chapter. Limits may be placed on facility capacities in
accordance with the timing and location requirements of the development
schedules. (For purpose of this criterion, capacities refers to facility
operating and design capacity.)
2b. Proposed waste facility capacities shall accommodate the projected market
demand for secondary materials and/or energy and/or the projected waste
supply from the areas they serve. Limits on capacities may be placed in
order to stage facility development with projected market demand and/or
supplies. (For purpose of this criterion, demand should be defined as "tne
quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.")
PROCESSING TECHNIQUES
Major waste facilities should provide routine management of continually gener-
ated solid waste. These facilities must be reliable. They must operate with
minimum risk to energy and recovered materials markets and to solid waste
generators and haulers. However, some waste processing techniques have had
recurring problems that have led to increased costs and inconsistent service.
These include:
o Damage to system components or unscheduled shutdowns resulting from
adaption of equipment designed for materials other than solid waste;
o Unpredicted wear resulting in frequent replacement and maintenance of
system components;
o Failure to attain the same efficiency and reliability at a commercial
scale that was achieved on a pilot scale.
Risk and reliability may be evaluated by considering the demonstrated and com-
mercial success of proposed solid waste processing techniques. Such projects
should be under conditions of similar facility scale, waste composition, waste
supply area generation rates and proximity, and product market needs. Over
time, experimental waste technologies may develop which could complement more
familiar technologies. Initial development should focus on small-scale or
demonstration -type projects.
Objectives
3a. Promote the use of technically reliable and efficient processing tech-
niques. Identify and resolve problems that may reduce processing
efficiency and reliability.
3b. Allow for the development of new and/or experimental waste processing
techniques to recover energy or materials.
Criteria
3a. Proposed processing facilities shall use materials handling and processing
techniques that are known to provide continuous, reliable and effective
service, while recovering energy and/or materials that consistently meet
market specifications.
3b. Facilities using new or ,ental waste processing techniques shall be
tested on a small -scaly nly. (A processing facility will be consid-
ered experimental if I,. ..,._ory of commercial effectiveness and workabil-
ity is undocumented.)
LOCATION
The location of solid waste management facilities will be influenced by several
factors, including availability of suitable land, proximity to markets for
energy or secondary materials, proximity to major highways and sources of
waste, and availability of adequate public utilities such as electric power,
water supply and wastewater treatment services. Proposed sites should not
create adverse social, economic or aesthetic impacts on nearby areas. Existing
technology and transportation costs will restrict some waste facilities to
locations near potential markets and waste generators.
Proposed waste facility locations will have certain land use limitations. One
measure of a location's acceptability is its degree of consistency with public
land use policy and values. Metropolitan Development Guide policy and local
comprehensive plans represent a consensus of public attitudes and values, since
they have been developed with citizen participation and adopted through the
public hearing process. In some cases, it may be desirable to locate waste
41
facilities adjacent to or as a part of the operation of other metropolitan
facilities, such as wastewater treatment plants. Once closed, waste sites may
be appropriate locations for other planned metropolitan uses. For example,
regional park development may be possible at closed waste facilities. The WMA
gives counties the authority to override local vetoes to establish waste pro-
cessing and land disposal facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811, subd. 4a and
sec. 473.823, subd. 5). The Council must approve the override.
Integrating facility site development with locally planned land uses, however,
may be more difficult. Recent Metropolitan Area siting efforts have demon-
strated the difficulty in finding locally acceptable locations for waste facil-
ities. Waste facilities rarely meet local land use planning requirements.
Override of local vetoes may be necessary in some circumstances. The Waste
Management Act gives counties the authority to override local vetoes to estab-
lish waste processing and land disposal facilities (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.811,
subd. 4a and sec. 473.823, subd. 5). The Council must approve the override.
Objectives
4a. Assure that proposed waste facilities are located in areas compatible, to
the extent possible, with local land use plans, and existing and planned
metropolitan systems and utilities.
4b. Assure that local land use concerns are considered in reviewing facilities
proposals.
Criteria
4a. Solid waste facilities should be compatible, to the extent possible, with
Council land use policies. The Council will consider county and local
comprehensive land use plans. Lack of compatibility with land use policies
and plans shall not preclude Council approval of a waste facility, if waste
management policy considerations must take precedence.
4b. Waste facility sites should be compatible with existing and planned metro-
politan systems. Where appropriate, waste facilities may be operated in
conjunction with other existing metropolitan system facilities.
4c. Waste facilities shall maintain proper site appearance and reasonable times
of operation. To the extent possible, waste facility sites should be
visually compatible with adjacent property or development. Operational
areas of solid waste facilities should be screened for public view.
Barriers, buffer zones and operating time limitations may be required to
reduce nuisance problems. This criterion may be met in accordance with the
authority granted counties or local units of government to place
restrictions and conditions on waste facilities.
4d. Waste facility sites shall be accessible year-round by nine -ton or better
weight -bearing roadways that have adequate capacity to accommodate facility
generated traffic. Adequate capacity is defined as traffic moving continu-
ally and steadily at a moderate speed. Access to the site should not
depend on the use of local and collector streets through residential areas.
4e. A proposed waste facility site should be capable, to the extent possible,
of being returned to a use anticipated in the plan of a metropolitan
agency, county or local unit of government after closure of the facility.
Land -use restrictions and closure dates may be placed on the facility com-
patible with the development of future uses for the site. This criterion
may be met in accordance with the authority granted counties or local units
of government to place restrictions and conditions on waste facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Overview
Proposed solid waste facilities must be reviewed according to criteria that
provide for protection of public health and environmental resources. This
protection requires care in selecting a waste facility's location, aesign,
types of materials accepted, methods of operation and post -closure care.
Shifting to more waste reduction and resource recovery and less land disposal
will result in a net improvement to the region's environment as potentially
harmful wastes are captured for productive use. The volume reductions achieved
by recycling and waste processing can reduce the disposal capacity needed in
the region to a fraction of that required for landfilling of mixed municipal
waste. The more homogeneous, more stabilized character of processed waste
lowers the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The organic content in
the waste is minimized, virtually eliminating the potential for methane
production and dramatically narrowing the range of potential contaminants in
leachate. Nuisance impacts -- odor, noise, dust, litter and traffic - will be
less for properties adjacent to disposal facilities. This benefit coupled with
a lower level of environmental risk may lessen the potential for decrease in
the market values of adjacent properties.
Environmental concerns and protection strategies will differ depending on the
type of facility and the waste material received. Land disposal facilities
will require greater levels of protection for ground water resources compared
to processing facilities. If waste combustion is involved, air quality will
likely be the primary concern. As the region's solid waste management system
evolves towards more complete reduction and recovery, the residual materials
ultimately requiring land disposal will be less in volume and more homogeneous
in composition, helping to assure fewer environmental impacts.
Land Disposal Facilities
Solid waste land disposal has often led to surface and/or groundwater contami-
nation from leachate. The degree of reported contamination has ranged from a
slight degradation to severe contamination with substances such as heavy
metals, organic compounds and disease -producing organisms. Groundwater is
usually very slow moving and it can be years or decades before contaminated
water reaches those who use water supplies. Moreover, after the source of
contamination has been removed it may take decades for groundwater to purge
itself. The costs of remed;al action to actively improve the groundwater
supplies can be enormous. Surface water and groundwater can be protected by
landfilling residual materials only and then minimizing leachate formation and
its flow through proper site i,election, design, operations and maintenance.
There is growing evidence to .ndicate that the groundwater systems in the
region are interconnected, implying a greater need for protection. Several of
the hydrogeologic units are dissected by bedrock valleys buried with glacial
drift or alluvial soil deposits characterised by high groundwater flow rates.
These bedrock valleys provide a hydraulic connection between deeper sedimentary
W
bedrock formations and the major river systems. These and other geologic
features cause vertical movement between aquifers. A;1 of the aquifers are
used for drinking water to some extent.
The Metropolitan Council recognized the importance of groundwater protection
in its Water Resources Policy Plan Guide Chapter adopted in 1973. Policy 29
of this plan states that "solid waste disposal sites must be designed and
constructed so as to preclude contamination of groundwater. Existing facili-
ties which are polluting the groundwater should be corrected or eliminated".
It is now widely recognized that engineering controls such as liners and leach -
ate collection systems must be used in new or expanded land disposal facilities
to more adequately protect groundwater. Liners are intended to retard leachate
seepage and provide containment for collection. Liners are usually made of
recompacted clay soils or synthetic fabrics. A leachate collection system is a
series of perforated pipes underlying the waste but overlying the liner to
allow removal of accumulated leachate. Once collected and removed, leachate
must be treated at the site or at a sewage treatment plant. Discharged leach -
ate must meet the same effluent quality standards as other sources of indus-
trial sewage waste. Compacted, low -permeable soils covering the top of the
disposal facility will limit infiltration of water into the waste material.
Installation of monitoring and a regular samplinS program can determine the
extent of any leachate migration from the site.
Land disposal facilities containing unprocessed waste high in organic materials
can produce other environmental impacts including explosive, toxic and
asphyxiating gases. Methane, a principal component of landfill gas, has been
known to accumulate in explosive concentrations and result in damage to persons
and property. Landfill gas can be controlled by one or more of the following
techniques: 1) lining the site with materials that bloc% the subsurface flow
of gas to adjacent land or into buildings off the site; 2) selectively placing
material to vent and/or collect gay; and 3) pumping wells to evacuate and vent,
burn or process the gas for sale
However, for some wastes, engineering controls alone are not adequate protec-
tion. The first and primary means of protecting surface and groundwater
resources should be the selection of locations that have hydrogeologic char-
acteristics, soils, and other natural features that will contain any leachate
that escapes engineered control systems. Some soils are better suited for
attenuating leachate, or, in other words, reducing its potency. Favorable land
disposal locations include areas with thick deposits of low permeable soils and
few connections with usablc water supplies.
Processing Facilities
Solid waste processing facilities include combustion units that recover energy,
facilities that prepare the solid waste into a fuel that can be shipped (RDF ),
composting facilities and transfer stations. The potential environmental
impacts will vary dependiny on the type of facility, waste feedstock and output
products.
Combustion facilities emit a wide array of substances into the air. The type
and quantity of these emissions depends on the furnace type, fuel composition,
and operational factirs. Federal and state air quality standards have been
developed for trite-•ia pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particu-
lates, nitrogen ox'.des, ozone, hydrocarbons and lead), and federal emissions
standards exist for certain hazardous substances such as asbestos. Continuous
progress is being made to improve the methodology of health risk assessments
for pollutants that do not have either emission or ambient standards. These
health risk analyses are conducted on a case by case basis for all types of
combustion facilities including coal fired power plants and solid waste energy
recovery plants. Several strategies can be used to bring emissions within
acceptable levels including installation of pollution control devices, adjust-
ing the charging rate and mixture of solid waste fuel supply, controlling air
supply, and regular facility maintenance.
Aesthetic and Nuisance Impacts
Aesthetic and other environmental impacts that can be associated with mixed
waste facilities are litter, dust, noise and odors. Facilities that handle
highly processed waste should have fewer nuisance problems. Litter can be
controlled by using fences, properly designing access routes and enclosing
tipping areas when possible. Paving or watering access roads minimizes blowing
dust from truck traffic. Noise from waste facilities can be reduced by
barriers, berms, vegetation and buffer space. Where building walls are of
lightweight construction, heavier or secondary walls can be used to reduce
noise. Odors can be minimized by regularly covering the waste with soil at
land disposal facilities receiving unprocessed or mixed waste. At mixed waste
processing facilities, odors can be avoided by controlling air flow and
preventing anaerobic conditions from developing in holding areas by minimizing
storage time. Facility design and operating practice should provide for
adequate protection of employee health and safety.
Objectives
5a. To locate, design, operate, and maintain solid waste facilities so as to
minimize risk to public health and environment.
5b. To reduce to the greatest extent possible environmental and nuisance
impacts at land disposal facilities.
Criteria
5a. Land disposal facilities shall be located, designed and operated to
prevent, to the greatest extent possible, discharge of leachate under or
beyond the site boundaries. Sites that present a high risk of ground or
surface water contamination will not be approved. The following factors
will be considered in determining consistency with this criterion:
o The characteristics of the wastes that will be accepted;
o Ability to prevent violations of state water quality stanuards;
o Ability to prevent exceedences of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
human health risk criteria;
o Ability to control unregulated substances adequately;
o The nature of the water resources including their existing uses and
potential for use (potential for use exists if a withdrawal rate of
one gallon/minute can be sustained);
v,,
o The underlying soils and hydrogeologic conditions (including depth to
bedrock, soil texture, permeability of underlying materials and
groundwater flow patterns); and
o Whether the applicant's proposed engineering control and management
technologies provide the levels of protection afforded by other
reasonably available technologies.
5b. Sites that would adversely impact environmentally sensitive areas should
not be approved. The characteristics of the specific area under considera-
tion (such as the presence of irreplaceable resources or endangered
species) and the characteristics of the wastes the proposed site would
accept, will be reviewed in assessing the potential for adverse impacts.
5c. Solid waste facilities shall provide for appropriate handling and treatment
of surface water runoff, wastewater and collected leachate.
5d. Suitable buffer areas, berms, barriers and vegetation shall be provided to
minimize noise, odors, landfill gas migration, public safety, nuisances and
other impacts on adjacent properties.
5e. Solid waste facility applicants shall develop environmental monitoring
programs and contingency plans. These plans shall, as determined by the
Council, address:
o Protection of surface and groundwater resources;
o Protection of air quality;
o Protection against odors, safety and nuisance impacts; and
o Conditioni under which the contingency plans would be implemented.
5f. Proposed land disposal facilities or capacity shall accept only processed
municipal waste residuals in accordance with the land disposal development
schedule or other special waste materials. The characteristics of pro-
cessed and special wastes will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis before
they wVl be allowed to be land disposed.
59. Municipal solid waste processing facilities shall be located, designed and
operated so as to minimize emissions to the atmosphere. The following
factors will be considered in determining consistency with this criterion:
o Ability tc prevent violations of state or federal ai• quality standards;
o Ability to control emissions for which neither ambient nor emissions
standards exist;
o The potential impact on environmentally sensitive ecosystems; and
o Whether the applicants proposed engineering control and management
technologies provide the levels of protection afforded by other
reasonably available technologies.
OPERATIONS
Solid waste management facilities must operate safely and so that the needs of
the waste generator are met regularly. Resource recovery facilities must pro-
vide a consistent and dependable supply of secondary materials and/or energy.
Failure to ensure such operations results in inconvenience, additional costs
and public health and safety risks. Facility operators, waste haulers, waste
generators, surrounding properties and markets for recovered products can be
affected by poor operations. For example:
o Poor equipment and improper site maintenance and safety precautions can
result in injury to facility personnel, waste disposers and nearby
residents; and
o Poor operations can shut down facilities, often resulting in service
disruptions to waste haulers and generators and service burdens on other
waste facilities.
The adverse effects of such operating problems may be alleviated by:
o Providing facility personnel training in proper site and equipment
operation and maintenance;
o Providing backup systems or alternative facilities to assure continued
operations during scheduled and unscheduled periods; and
o Providing storage capacity and/or supplementary fuel to ensure a contin-
uous supply or energy or recovered materials during periods of no collec-
tions.
Objectives
6a. Ensure that facility operations result in safe, regular and efficient waste
management services.
6b. Ensure adequate and continued waste management services during nonoperating
periods.
Criteria
6a. Proposed waste .facility applicants shall demonstrate ability to properly
operate and maintain the facility. The Council will take into account per-
sonnel training and previous operating experience in determining ability to
meet this criteria. Federal and state agencies and local governmental
units responsible for waste facility enforcement and public health and
safety will be consulted.
6b. Proposed waste facilities shall have controlled access to prevent unauthor-
ized entry and have provisions for handling wastes left at the facility
illegally.
6c. Proposed waste processing facilities shall ensure regular service to genera-
tors during nonoperating periods by demonstrating the availability of
backup processing or disposal services. Standby procedures should be estab-
lished for emergencies and periods when the facility is shut down.
IOn
COMPETITIVE OPERATION
Public concern about environmental protection has resulted in greater public
sector involvement in the waste management field. However, public sector
involvement should not unnecessarily intrudo upon existing, economically viable
waste management activities unless necessr to achieve the objectives of waste
reduction and resource recovery. New publicly supported facilities should not
create an unfair advantage or restraint of trade in relation to comparable
private or public facilities already in operation. Situations in which compa-
rable waste facilities may compete include: public land disposal vs, private
land disposal and public waste processing vs. private or public waste process-
ing. Lower disposal fees at new public facilities could lure waste collection
firms away from exsisting, viable facilities, already consistent with regional
solid waste system objectives.
The criteria in this section do not apF'y to waste flow designation proposals
(See Appendix: Waste Flow Designation uposals.)
Objectives
7a. Ensure that publicly supported waste facilities do not jeopardize viable,
comparable waste facilities currently in operation.
- iteria
7a. Public waste facility proposals shall not create an unfair or unreasonable
advantage or restraint of trade in relation to viable, comparable waste
facilities currently in operation unless the displacement is necessary to
achieve the objectives of the waste reduction/resoure recovery and land
disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide chapter. Restrictions
may be placed on facility design and operating capacities. For a resource
recovery facility or transfer station serving a resource recovery facility,
restrictions may be placed on facility design and operating capacities
and/or on the composition, quantity and geographic territory of the waste
suppl4es. For purposes of this criterion, "public sup-,orted" facilities
ludes proposed facilities that would be owned and/or operated by public
^ies and facilities that would be owned and operated by others and
'ted primarily by public funds or obligations. The Council will
^r the following factors to determine whether waste facilities are
ble and have the potential to compete:
o Consistency with the waste reduction/resource recovery and land
disposal development programs in Part 4 of the guide chapter;
o The design and operating capacities of the waste facilities;
o The "tipping fees" charged at the facilities;
o The geographic area from which the waste facilities draw their waste;
o lr,e Ilities' sources of funding for capital and operating
expen.,itures;
o The facilities' waste supply and refuse -derived product market
contracts or commitments; and
o The economic requirements and viability of the facilities.
101
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The economic effects of solid waste management are far reaching. Jobs, collec-
tion and disposal fees, and local and regional land use and public Service
burdens can be affected by waste management decisions. Shifting from present
disposal practices to new methods will inevitably result in higher waste manage-
ment service costs. Large, centralized resource recovery plant and environ-
mentally improved land disposal facilities are expensive to build and operate.
Many new waste management methods will require public subsidies. Ultimately
these costs will be passed on to the waste generator.
The transition to Ater waste services, however, reouires that management
costs du not greatly exceed the benefits of environmental protection and
resource conservation. The benefits include the avoided costs of land dis-
posing less waste, less risk to the public health and environment, fewer
adverse social consequences and materials and energy resource savings. Deter-
mining the net improvement to the regional solid waste system is difficult to
make because benefits can not easily be measured. To some extent these factors
are unknown and beyond quantifying. Since the guide chapter rep esents public
consensus on the risks and benefits of various waste management methods and
preferred alternatives, it can be used as one measure of a facility's benefit -
cost to the region.
Solid waste facilities secured by public funds or obligations may increase the
public economic risk. If the acquisition or betterment of a facility or site
is secured by public funds or obligations pledging the full faith and credit or
taxing powers of a government unit, the facility or site's costs should be
covered by reasonable rates and charges for use of the facility. If property
tax revenues are pledged, the public should be assured, to the extent possible,
that property taxes will not be spent for an inefficient operation. Since
methods of financing facilities can vary considerably, the Council will need to
examine carefully the financial circumstances of facility proposals to deter-
mine the extent of public debt obligation. When costs are paid, in part, from
sources other than property taxes, such as corporate earnings, private stock or
bond sales, and state or federal grants, property tax risks are not a, -P-t.
Solid waste facilities can influence local development conditions. K_vurce
recovery facilities may increase industrial and/or commercial development
around them. Energy intensive industries and/or waste related recycling or pro-
cessing facilities may be encouraged :o locate close by. Such development
increases tax revenues to local units of government and provides employment
opportunities. There are, however, many factors involved with such development
and its potential around resource recovery facilities is speculative at this
time.
Land disposal facilities generally do not encourage surrounding development and
provide few jobs and relatively little tax revenues. Moreover, once closed
land disposal facilities have limited use for subsequent development. Land dis-
posal facilities may also depress surrounding property values. Few studies,
though, have been done to uetermine the impact of undesirable facilities upon
adjacent property values.
Solid waste facilities may require a number of public services. Such services
include water and sewer hookups, additional fire and police services, litter
control, installing traffic signals, road upgrading and maintenance, buffer
zone amenities, environmental protection, monitoring and inspection, and end-
use plant, •,4 preparation. The costs of theca sirves are generally borne
by state, r^u. ind local governments. Disposal charges and permit and
license fees cat. offset some costs. Counties and cities in the Metropolitan
Area that have operating land disposal facilities withir.their jurisdictions
may charge a fee on the waste received at these facilities. This authority was
granted in the 1984 amendments to the WMA to help offset local public service
costs. The Council has made recommendations to the state legislature on
mitigating methods and compensation measures that should be used to offset
waste facility impa.'> on local jurisdictions.
Objectives
8a. Minimize the costs of implementing waste reduction and resource recovery.
8b. Ensure that publicly owned, operated or funded waste facilities, or waste
facilities having contractural obligations with governmental units,
minimize public economic isk.
8c. Minimize adverse economic effects on local communities affected by waste
fa;i-
Criteria
8a. A proposed was!- facility's impact on regional solid waste service costs
shall be reasonable. This criterion recognizes that there may be service
cost differences to generators in sectors of the Metropolitan Area as a
result of particular facilities. The Council will conside, she following
factors in determining -onsl;tency with this criterion:
o - proposed facility's cost with the cost of si^!lar facilities.
o Rates and charges for use of the facility, and their reasonableness
compared with other charges within the Metropolitan Area including, but
not limited to, facilities for resource recovery, recycling, land
disposal and transfer stations; and
o The reasonableness of , .. grvr;-nmental charges to waste generators
through property taxes a ' other service charge
8b. Public waste facility proposals should, to the ext,•nt possibic 'finan-
cially self-sufficient and minimize local tax panYnt risk. P_,�,,:ed
operating revenues, including those from ',e sale of recovery products and
dru, charges or user fees, should be ae to to pay capital and operating
costs associated with a facility ur.iern. .ten by a governmental unit over
the life of the facility. The Council ,.ill consider, among other ele-
ments, the following in determining the extent of public obligation and
consistency with this criterion:
o Total capital costs and the projected annual operation,
administration, maintenance and debt service costs of the faci'i;y;
o Amount, level and natm a projected revenues available for the
payment or facility cost c.ver the life of the facility;
10?
o Proposed methods of financingi the facility; the amount, type and
provisions made for the security of any public indebtedness incurred
to finance the facility; the size of the tax base and other financial
resources backing any bonds to be issued to finance the facility; and
o Any facts about the facility that could affect its continued
operation and realization of revenues necessary for financial self-
sufficiency, including supply contracts and by-product markets.
8c. A proposed waste facility should minimally impact surrounding land use
development and property values. Buffer zones, facility end use plans and
closure dates compatible with local comprehensive plans may be used to
mitigate such impacts.
8d. A proposed waste facility should not place burdens on the use of local
public services without compensation. Services available from other
governments and compensation may be used to meet facility service
requirements as provided for under state law.
SOLID WASTr 'PPLY AND PROCESSING CONTRACTS
The Waste M„nager^ -t Act (WMA) authorizes cities, counties and towns in the
region to enter long -tens contracts for the delivery of solid waste to
waste facilities and the processing of solid waste (Minn. Stat., sec. 473.813,
sub. 1). The success of waste facility proposals often depends on long -tern
commitments for waste supplies and processing. With such commitments, a
proposed facility could demonstrate economic viability, and thereby secure
capital financing. It is anticipated that long-term supply and processing
contracts will be entered into as facilities identified it approved county
master plans proceed toward development.
The WMA authorizes Council review and approval of local government supply and
processing contract, longer than five years duration (Minn. Stat. sec. 473.813,
sub. 2). Such reviews may be consolidated with Council waste facility permit
application re•i ews. Processing contracts will only be reviewed if there are
proposed long -.arm waste supply commitments. Local governmental supply and
processing contracts that are less than five years in duration may be reviewed
as a part of waste facility permit review. The criteria in this section will
be used for a'1 contract reviews. Waste .ility permit review criteria will
also be used It applicable. An approved contract will remain in effect unless
the contra substantially amended or revised to the extent that additional
Council r. is necessary.
The shift to a regional system based c•i waste reduction and resource recovery
will increase costs. Some sectors of the region initially may pay more for
waste management service than others. As more of the region implements waste
reduction and rr,source recovery, these cost inequities should decrease. For
this reason, review of supply and processing contracts should focus on the long-
term effects on waste management services. Maintaining waste management ser-
vice costs immediately competitive reg;on-wife should not be a prerequisite for
contract approval.
Supply and processing contracts should incorporate flexible payment mechanisms
to respond to changing facility service conditions. If waste supply volumes or
recovered energy and materials market prices rise or fall, this can afleLt
contract terms. Contracts should contain appropriate performance lid-antees,
equitable -.nmpensation formulas, s,,. is classes (fur example, tonnage
guarantee , ov.sions, )urce separa• . clauses) and risk -sharing provisions.
I f14
Objectives
9a. Ensure that waste supply and processing contracts facilitate implementation
of the waste reduction/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of
the guide chapter.
9b. Ensure that supply and processing contracts can respond to changing
facility service requirements and market conditions.
Criteria
9a. Waste supply and processing contracts shall be consistent with waste
reduction/resource recovery development program in Part 4 of the guide
chapter.
Waste supply and processing contracts should not prevent or adversely
affect the operation or development of other waste facilities and waste
management activities unless necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Waste Reduction/ Resource Recovery Development Program. The following
factors will be considered in determining ability to meet this criterion:
o Probable effect of the contract payment structure on waste facilities
and activities;
o Effect on service areas and collection rates and charges; and
o Effect on projects and activities required by the waste reduction/
resource recovery and development program.
9b. Increases in long-term waste management service costs as a result of waste
supply and processing contracts should be reasonable with respect to the
amount of processing and waste reduction/resource recovery achieved. The
Council will emphasize the post five-year effects on service costs. This
criterion recognizes there may by mediate increases in collection rates
and charges and service cost differences as a result of particular waste
facil+ties and activities.
9c. Waste Supply and processing contracts should minimize public economic
risk. Contracts will be examined for the following factors:
o Quantity and duration of waste supplies and the required service area to
meet minimum facility operating requirements and debt service
amortization;
o Method of ensuring that the waste can be provided to the facility.
o Provisions to adjust dreo charges and the price of energy and secondary
materials produced by the facility to reflect changes in the cost for
operations, maintenance, and value of materials or energy recovered; and
o The facility's performance guarantees and contract contingencies.
WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS
INTRODUCTION
Under the state WMA, metropolitan counties can form waste management
districts. This authority is granted to enable counties to implement waste
management practices that would be impossible to do without districts. The
Metropolitan Council has the authority to approve proposals for districts.
Specific operating conditions can be a part of the Council's approval.
Solid waste management districts are piilic corporations and political subdivi-
sions of the state. Two or more counties can form waste districts. Districts
are officially established by the state Waste Management Board. The Board
cannot establish a district wholly within or extending into the Metropolitan
Area without the approval of the Council. The Council cannot approve a dis-
trict unless its articles of incorporation have the same procedural and substan-
tive responsibilities, duties and relationship to the metropolitan agencies as
a metropolitan county.
The Board cannot establish a district unless the counties demonstrate that they
are unable tc fulfill the purposes of a district through joint action. The
counties must have completed a solid waste management plan before a district
can be formed. The governing body of a district is made up of persons
appointed by the counties. At least one person appointed by each county shall
be an elected official from a governmental unit within the district.
Districts have various powers including: the acquisition of property by pur-
chase, lease, condemnation and gift; the right of entry; the right to accept
gifts, grants and loans; the construction and operation of solid waste facili-
ties and services; the setting of rates and charges for waste facilities and
services of the district; the right to dispose of property; the employment of
persons; and review by the district of other waste facilities within a
district. Property owned, used or occupied by the district is exempt from
taxation by the state or any political subdivision of the state. Districts
have the same rights as municipalities to issue revenue bonds.
Waste districts have the power to designate the flow of waste to specific
resource recovery facilities, if the designation authority is in its articles
of incorporation. The WMA sets up a specific process that must be followed by
the Board to establish, alter and terminate waste districts. The WMA specifies
petition contents, local review and comment procedures, hearing procedures and
final decision procedures to be used by the Board.
REASONS FOR CREATING A WASTE DISTRICT
Waste districts allow two or more counties to consolidate solid waste manage-
ment authority into a single, special purpose implementing agency. District
boundaries do not have to coincide with county boundaries, and thus allow
counties to consolidate authority for specific geographic areas. Only one-half
of the counties within a proposed district need to petition for the
establishment of a district. This authority allows counties to bring other
counties or portions of other counties into districts. With the exception of
taxation, waste districts have about the same authorities for waste management
as individual counties have.
The major reasons for creating a waste district are: 1) fiscal self-suffici-
ency, 2) emphasis on technical specialization and efficiency and 3) geographic
flexibility.
The WMA allows districts to obtain revenues from only non -tax sources. Rev-
enues can be generated directly from facility user fees or from revenue bonds
amortized by u,er fees. Revenues can also be obtained by grants and appro-
priations from other governmental units. User fees, however, probably would
account for most of a district's revenues.
Districts can pursue particular service responsibilities with a high degree of
technical efficiency, whereas a county frequently has to weigh competing func-
tional interests against one another. Providing only special service functions
gives a district less organizational flexibility and integration than general
purpose goverment. Specific expertise and capabilities may be easier to build
in a district.
A district may allow for greater geographic flexibility than managing waste,
based on county jurisdictional boundaries. Certain natural, social or economic
characteristics of waste management services may require a close relationship
between service area and service functions. District boundaries can conform to
the service area of the particular waste management functions to be provided.
Since the district would only be concerned with providing waste services, it
would be regarded as a service mechanism rather than a governmental device.
Therefore, the general public may regard a district's service area as an
inherent component of the structure.
ISSUES CONCERNING DISTRICT FORMATION
Waste districts present a number of policy issues that should be considered
when such proposals are evaluated. The major issues are 1) consistency with
solid waste goals and objectives; 2) service efficiency and equity; 3) district
accountability; and 4) administrative effectiveness.
A waste district should further regional and county solid waste goals and
objectives. Although independently operating public bodies, districts will
exist within the jurisdictions of planned regional and county waste management
systems. It is essential that district services are compatible with the
services of adjacent jurisdictions and meet overall reginnal service objectives.
Waste districts should be able to change their operations in response to chang-
ing needs and problems. They need to plan and carry out their )aerations in a
way that ensures a high -quality service, not merely a service that pays for
itself. In carrying out projects and activities for land disposal abatement,
districts need to keep in mind that ewnomic considerations, though important,
should not be the only factor in making decisions.
Waste districts should coordinate their planning and operations with regional
and county plans. Counties should careful y consider what waste management
responsibilities should be delegated to wate districts to ensure an appropri-
ate division of auth—ity.
A waste district should deliver effici;• and effective waste services. When
counties propose to form a waste district, they should demonstrate that a
district would be more effective in meeting regional goals and objectives than
counties acting individually or through joint -powers agreements. An important
If,'
consideration is a district's financial capability, which can affect the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of its operations, as well as its overall success.
This will need to be carefully examined when it comes time to review proposals
for establishing waste districts. Another consideration is equity in what rate
pa ers are charged for waste services and the type of service they receive.
A11 local jurisdictions and citizens H the district should receive services of
similar quality and cost.
Districts need to be sure they are responsive and accountable to public needs
and demands. Proposals to form waste districts will need to be carefully
examined to make sure that citizens, public officials and the private sector
are involved in district decision -making and operations. One possible way of
ensuring accountability is to provide for oversight of district activities by
general-purpose governments or by some other interaction with them.
Counties should be sure that a waste district they propose has adequate autho-
rity and resources to perform its functions. At the same time, responsibili-
ties given a waste district should not duplicate those of other governmental
units, or conflict with the plans or operations of other units. Provisions for
coordination between the district and other units may be necessary to avoid
duplication, to encourage the mutually beneficial exchange of information, and
to ensure the timing and development of projects takes place most efficiently
and effectively. Another important point is that a district's service area
should be drawn in a way that promotes the most effective performance of waste
services.
Objectives
10a. Ensure that the establishment of waste districts will facilitate implemen-
tation of the waste reduction/resource recovery development program in
Part 4 of the guide chapter.
10b. Ensure that waste districts are responsive to local citizens, public and
private interests.
10c. Ensure that waste districts have appropriate administrative structure and
capabilities to deliver services efficiently and equitably.
Criteria
10a. Proposed waste districts shall be consistent with waste reduction/
resource recovery development program in Part 4 of guide chapter.
The Council wil: consider the proposal's consistency with affected county
master plans and local plans. The Council will evaluate the:
o District's capability to meet regional objectives.
o Effect of the district on other projects or districts; and
o Need to consolidate solid waste planning and implementation activities
with affected counties and local units of government.
10b. Waste district proposals shall incorporate in its articles of incorpora-
tion, the same procedural and substantive responsibilities, duties and
relationship to the Metropolitan CounL41 and metropolitan agencies as a
metropolitan county. Waste District Proposals shall also include a
mechanism to ensure public involvement and review of its activities.
IOc. Waste district proposals shall demonstrate capability to provide waste
services more effectively than can be done by individual counties or by
counties acting through joint agreements. The Council will consider:
o Financing capabilities of the district; and
o Capability of the district to implement projects and activities.
10d. Proposals shall avoid duplication of effort and demonstrate adequate sepa-
ration of responsibilities. Proposals shall a';o provide for integration
of procedures, projects and programs with affected jurisdictions to
ensure mutually beneficial exchanges of information and data and coordi-
nation of projects and activities.
10e. Waste district service area boundaries shall promote effective service
delivery. The Council will examine social, economic, environmental and
geographic characteristics that promote reasonable service area bounda-
ries.
WASTE FLOW DESIGNATION PROPOSALS
OVERVIEW
The WMA establishes a process whereby a waste district or county can be author-
ized to require that solid waste generated within i,s boundaries, or a service
area thereof, be delivered to existing or planned resource recovery facilities
it designates. Using governmental controls to direct the movement of waste to
a particular destination is referred to as waste flow designation or flow con-
trol. Council approval of waste flow desigr.ations is required.
Waste assurance simply means to assure the movement of waste from its origin to
a particular destination. Waste flow designation is the most restrictive
method of waste assurance. Other less restrictive methods include economic
incentives to influence waste movement or contracting with waste collectors and
local communities having direct control over waste movement. The extent to
which waste movement must be controlled determines the waste assurance method
that will be used.
Waste assurance is generally used to meet the financial security requirements
on resource recovery projects. Large-scale recovery facilities usually require
significant capita' investment. By assuring delivery of a definite quantity of
waste to a facility, revenues are guaranteed from disposal fees and from sales
of energy and/or materials products. The revenues provide a source of ir:ome
to amortize the project's debt service. Investment commitments are tied
closely to the strength of waste supply commitments.
Waste assurance can also be used to facilitate other planning objectives.
Waste assurance provides greater control over the various components of waste.
Recyclables, hazardous components and nonrecoverable residuals may be separated
and sent to appropriate facilities. Th^ development and operation of ancillary
projects may be improved with dependable ., aste quantities and predictable
patterns of waste movement. Pr ject type, size, location and financing can be
all better controlled under such circumstances.
In"
WMA DESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS
The WMA sets forth a three -step process for waste flow designation. The county
or waste district must: 1) have adopted a solid waste master plan that includes
a designation plan; 2) hold a public hearing on the designation and, if pos-
sible, negotiate contracts with users of the recovery facility; and 3) adopt a
designation ordinance. Both the designation plan and ordinance require Council
approval.
The WMA exempts from designation: 1) waste that is generate! %.ithin the state,
but deposited outside of the state; 2) materials that are separated from solid
waste and recovered for reuse in their orignal form or for use in manufacturing
processes; and 3) materials 6.1t are processed at another resource recovery
facility at the capacity in operation at the time the designation plan is
approved. In addition, at the time the Council approves the designation plan,
materials must be excluded from designation that will be processed at potential
resource recovery facilities the Council is convinr : will be substantially com-
pleted within 18 months. Operators or owners of pr„posed recovery facilities
must file with the Council for the exclusion.
The WMA requires designation plans to evaluate: 1) the benefits of the designa-
tion and how it furthers local and regional waste management plans and policies
as well as state policies and purposes; and 2) the estimated costs of the
designation and its long-term effects. Particular areas the WMA requires
designation plans to evaluate include:
o Whether the designation will result, in the recovery of resources or energy
from materials that would otherwise be wasted;
o Whether the designation will lessen the demand for and use of land
disposal;
o Whether the designation is necessary for the financial support of the
facility;
o Whether less restrictive methods for ensuring an adequate solid waste
supply are available; and
o What other feasible and prudent waste processing alternatives are avail-
able for accomplishing the purposes of the designation, and their costs
and effects on the cost to waste generators.
If these points are adequately addressed, the designation plan is to be
approved. The Council has 90 days to reach a decision after a designation plan
has been submitted. Once the plan his been approved, the county or district
must hold a public hearing on the designation and negotiate contracts, if
possiole, with solid waste collectors expected to use the recovery facility.
At the end of the negotiation period, the county or district can proceed with
preparation of a designation ordinance. The ordinance must specify the exact
nature, geographical area, requirements and governing regulations of the
designation.
The county or district must submit the designation ordinance and any long-term
negotiated contracts to the Council for approval. The Council has 90 days to
complete its review and reach a decision on the ordinance or contracts. If the
Council determines that the ordinance is based on an approved designation plan
11-i
and that the county or district has followed the required procedures regarding
the public hearing and negotiating contracts, the Council must approve the
ordinance. The Council may attach conditions to its approval. The designation
authority may amend the designation ordinance with the approval of the Council.
The WMA requires the Council to monitor the effectiveness of any designations.
The designation authority must submit regularly to the Council reports on
implementation of the designation. The Council is required to periodically
evaluate the effectiveness of the designation and whether state purposes and
policies are being met.
ISSUES CONCERNING WASTE FLOW DESIGNATION
The merits of waste flow designation have been public) debated for a number of
years. Concern has focused largely on the effect designation would have on the
c- ipetitive nature of the regions waste services. Waste flow designation
imposes limitations on both waste movement and available waste facility
options. Waste collectors will have limited choice on where to take the waste
once it is collected. Such controls could substantially change the present
competitive service arrangement in parts of the region. Notwithstanding, since
present waste services do not fully internalize their costs, economic considera-
tions should not be the only basis for evaluating waste designation proposals
(see Part 3 of the guide chapter). Total service impacts must be analyzed,
including resource recovery objectives designation may further. Factors that
should be evaluated include;
o Whether the designation furthers the objectives of the Waste Reduction/
Resource Recovery Development Program in Part 4 of the guide chapter;
o Whether the designation is necessary for financial support and whether
less restrictive waste assurance methods are available;
o Maintaining incentives for designated resource recoi-y facilities to
operate efficiently;
o The effect changes in waste supplies and other waste reduction/recovery
activities will have on the designation; and
o Enforcement methods to ensure compliarcf with designation.
Waste flow designations should be carefully evaluated to assure furtherance of
state and regional waste management policy. Designation proposals must demon-
strate that the use of land disposal will be reduced, and that the development
of other waste reduction and recovery methods will not be jeapordized. The
costs and benefits of using alternative recovery measures in place of the pro-
posed designation activities must be evaluated. Designation proposals will
also have to scrutinized to determine to what extent ancillary activities may
benefit, such as improving the operation of source separation and composting
programs because of greater control over various waste components. Periodic
monitoring will be necessary to assure designation continues advancement of
state and regional policy.
Waste designation will be necessary to support the financial feasibility of
some projects and activities. The financing instruments being considered will
have to be carefully examined to determine if designation is absolutely
required, or whether other methods of waste assurance could be used. Other
N
methods may include: economic incentives; entering into long-term waste supply
contracts; placing restrictions on the use of other waste facilities; and main-
taining certain controls over waste collection services. It may be possible to
use designation in conjunction with other methods, with designation providing a
backup *echanism if the other methods do not work as anticipated. Alternative
financing methods may also have to be evaluated if they result in the use of
other assurance methods.
By guaranteeing waste supplies, designation may remove economic incentives for
private operators of resource recovery facilities to contain expenses and pro-
vide responsible service. Facility operators would not have to be concerned
that high prices or poor services would result in waste collectors taking the
refuse elsewhere. Close public scrutiny of facility performance is, therefore,
necessary to ensure efficient operations. Contractural and financing/ownership
between governmental units and private facility owners can be used to ensure
accountability and efficient performance. The Council is authorized to approve
long-term waste supply and processing contracts between local governmental
units and private operators (see Appendix: Solid Waste Supply and Processing
Contracts).
It is important to take into account the effect changes in waste supplies and
other waste reductir.,n/resource recovery activities will have on the designa-
tion. Solid waste supplies generated within the designation will be committed
to go to the designated facility or facilities, with the exception of the
exemptions authorized by the WMA and exclusions for other recovery facilities
authorized by the Council. The designation will commit the waste supplies for
a specified period of time, usually the capital debt service period for the
activities being financed. This period of time could be as long as 20 to 30
years for facilities requiring significant investment. Fluctuations in the
waste supplies, seasonal variations and changes due to the impact of other
recovery programs, must be anticipated during the period of the designation, as
well as, changes in the designated facility's operating capabilities, such as
future expansions and terminations. Designations will, therefore, have to be
carefully reviewed for computability with long-range plans f solid waste
activities and the effect of authorized waste supply exempt' ,s and recovery
facility exclusions. Over time it may be necessary to change certain features
of the designation, including its jurisdi-'ional boundaries, to account for
changes in waste supplies and solid waste ivities.
Finally, implementation of a designation requ,res enforcement to ensure com-
pliance. Because designatioi imposes higher costs initially waste collectors
may simply refuse to comply ann rrrtinue to use less expensive non -designated
disposal facilities. It may b, 'icularly difficult to enforce a designation
if a large number of collection cles and firms are affected. The jurisdic-
tional boundaries of the designation will have to to examined to determine if
compliance can be reasonably enforced. Designatijn ordinances will also have
to be examined closely to assure that adequate enforcement mechanisms will be
used. Methods, such as levying fines, marking collection vehicles with distin-
guishable identifications and inspecting non -designated facilities, should be
considered. Cooperative enforcement arrangements with jurisdictions outside
the designation may be necessary.
Objectives
Ila. Ensure that waste flnw designations facilitate implementation of ine
Regional System Plan.
llb. Ensure that waste flow designations, to the extent possible, mininize
adverse impacts on waste collection patterns and services.
llc. Ensure that waste flow designations have appropriate administrative
capabilities to deliver services efficierr;ly and equitably.
lld. Ensure that waste flow designation is needed and that less restrictive
methods are not available that would accomplish th2 same purposes and
results as the designation would.
Criteria
lla. Proposed waste flow designations shall be consistent with the regional
solid waste system plan and policies. Proposed designations shall demon-
strate that a significant reduction in demand (at least 40 oercent is
recommended) for land disposal capacity will occur for the waste generated
in the designated area during the period of the designation. The Council
will evaluate:
o The designation's capability to further the objectives of waste
reduction and resource recovery development program in Part 4 of the
guide chapter.
o The extent to which the use of land disposal is reduced;
o The effect of the designation on existing and proposed solid waste
projects and activities;
o Consistency with county solid waste master plans; and
o Consistency with stale policies and purposes.
11b. Proposed waste flow designations shall demons rate that efficient facility
operations and performance will be maintained. The Council will evaluate:
o The extent to which public contractural and financing/ownership arrange-
ments with private operators will ensure accountability and less risk
of inefficient performance.
o The effect the &signation wil' i waste service delivery costs;
and
o The ect on performanre without the designation.
11c. Proposed waste flow designations .hall have adequate aalid waste supplies
during the designation period. It may Se necessar; .0 amend the desicna-
tion at a later time period to account '.or changes in waste supplies.
Factors that will be considered include:
o The seasonal variation and projected grawth raias of solid waste
supplies;
o Pr000s?d expansions or terminations of the designated facility that may
o.-r in the future;
o The impact on solid waste supplies by other existing and proposed solid
waste projects and activities; and
o '.he effect on solid waste supplies of exemptions authorized under the
WMA and recovery facility exclusions aut°.erized by the Council.
lld. The jurisdictional boundaries of the proposed waste flow designation shall
promote efficient service delivery. The Council will examine the
economic and ger-;ra,,hic characteristi.s that promote reasonable service
area boundaries.
lle. Proposed waste flow designation ordinances and other controls that may be
necessary shall demonstrate that adequate enforcement mechanisms exi;t to
ensure -impliance. Enforcement arrangements with local jursidiction; and
jurise ions outside of the designated area may be necessary to ensure
compliance.
llf. Proposed waste flow de ignattnns shall demonstrate that designation is
necessary for the financial support of the projects and activities. The
Council will evaluate:
o Alternative methods of fii,ancing the proposed activities;
o Whether other methods of waste assurance can be used or not;
o The 's and benefits of using alternative recovery measures in glace
Of 6 . designation activities; and
o Whether resource recovery is feasible without the designation.
11g. Proposed reso�r: rt.,very facility exclusions shall demonstrate that they
will be substant'ialiy completed within 18 montrr from the time the
designation is approve;' and -h Te of sustaining viable operations. The
Council will examine:
o The strength of waste supply and product market commitments;
o The ability to secure a location f'or the project or activity;
o Whether a commercially demonstrated technology sill be used or not;; and
i The ability to nbtain all necessary permits ano approv 's and complete
construction.
CERTIFICP,fE of NEED
Ti,. I amendments •.o the Waste Manaym,,.nt Act specify that no new 'and dis-
pr; ,pacity for -mixed „r;cipal solid waste shall be permitted in the Metro-
politan Area without a cert ficate c need issued by the Council indicating
that the addri. onal disposal Capacity is nc.ded. Afce� the counties have sub-
mitted their solid waste master plans, the Council . ,,mend the guide chapter
to include standa .s procedures for certi}r4ng nee— The standards a:J
procedures will be t n the Council's waste reduction/resource recovery and
land disposal develot. st.aedules. The WMA requires V ' the Council cert fy
nee' only to the extent that there are no feasible and p, ent alternatives to
land disposal. Alternatives that are speculative or in. aural cannot be
deemed to be feasible and prudent. Economic considerations alone cannot
justify the certification of need or the rejection of alternatives. Candidate
landfill sites eliminated from consideration in the Council's regional inven-
tory or by the couity site selection authorities cannot be considered as
alternatives.
ti
I
r r� 9r i nu
�•.'.�_r DEC
i �.•
or 6121291 6359
December 14, 1984
TO: Local Government Key
Contact
People
SUBJECT: Improving Communications with Local Governments
Enclosed is a list of Metropolitan Council and Council committee meetings, with
agendas, for the coming week. This is one of the items that was requested by
local government officials who responded to a recent Council survey aimed at
improving our communications with you.
We will be sending you Meetings and Agendas every Friday, as soon as agendas
for the coming week are set. As the "key contact person" for your local
government, we're counting on you to inform the appropriate people within your
government of meetings that may co-cern them. You'll still receive a two -week
advance notice of these meetings in the Council"s bimonthly newsletter, the
Review.
As part of my effort to establish stronger lines of communication With local
governments, We will be acting on a number of other recommendations based on
results of the survey. What follows is a rundown of our plans.
The Council intends to give local governments more opportunities to participate
in setting regional policies and solving regional problems. This means we will
be holding more informal discussion meetings among local and regional
pollcymakers and among their staffs. The meetings will be held for such policy
work as amendments to regional policy plans, and new initiatives and
legislative proposals to solve regional problems.
In addition, to make sure you're notified of Council actions affecting you, we
plan to provide for systematic notice. And to give you more information about
the winds of technical assistance the Council offers, we're preparing a
brochure with descriptions and a list of staff members to contact for help.
Copies of a report with these recommendations, Improving Communications with
Local Governments, are available from our Communications Department, 291- 4 4.
I'd welcome your comments on the report and our plans to Implement it.
SiSincerely,
Sandra S. Gardebring
Mir
Enclosure
0� "
December 14, 1984
Week of Dec. 17 - Dec. 21
NOTE: This publication contains a one -week list of meetings and agenda items
for the Metropolitan Council, its standing committee. and advisory committees
as well as similar information for the Regional Transit Board. It is mailed
every Friday to a contact person in the region's local governments and to the
Twin Cities media. The information is current as of the date of publication.
However, meetings and agendas occasionally must be changed. For this reason,
local government officials planning to attend meetings should verify the
information in advance. Call 291-6464 to do so. Media should continue to call
Ken Reddick, 291-6422, or Lynne Williams, 291-6511, for more information.
Regional Transit Board Public Hearing - Monday, Dec. 17, 4:30 p.m., Council
Chambers. The board will hold a public hearing on draft of 1985-87 Interim
Implementation Plan and discuss proposed Urban Mass Transit Administration
(UMTA) policy on private enterprise participation in the urban mass
transportation program.
Chair Gardeoring's Meeting with Union Leaders - Tuesday, Dec. 18, 7:30 a.m.,
St. Paul Hotel, 350 Market St.
Metropolitan Council Staff Meeting - Tuesday, Dec. 18, 9:30 a.m., Council
Chambers.
Aggregate Resources Advisory Committee - Tuesday, Dec. 18, 3:30 p.m., Council
Chambers. The committee will continue discussion of the aggregate resource
reports distributed at the Nov. 19 meeting. It will hear a panel on
aggregate resource data requirements for local planning.
Transportation Advisory Board - Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2 p.m., Council Chambers.
The committee will hear a status report on the TAB Policy Plan Committee's
review of transit alternative studies and a report of the State Highway Study
Commission on roadway jurisdiction. The Technical Advisory Committee will
report on new UMTA policy on private sector involvement in the urban was
tranportation program. Agency reports will follow.
Environmental Resources Committee - Wednesday, Dec. 19, 4 p.m. Conference Knows
A, B, C. The committer is expected to determine the adequacy of the
environmental impact atatement for the Flying Cloud (Eden Prairie) Sanitary
Landfill. The committee will also hear a briefing on water resources.
Chair Cardebring .peeking et the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce - Thursday,
Dec. 20, 11:Y5 a.m., River House Supper Club, 9510 W. River Rd., Brooklyn
Park.
Metropolitan River Corridor Study Committee - Thursday, Dec. 20, i2:30 p.m.,
Conference Room E. The committee will review the recommended approach to
recreation benefits allocation and a status report on agency contracts. It
will review a resolution supporting the Metropolitan Council's 1985
legislative program and hear a status report on the committee's finances.
Management Committee - Thursday, Dec. 20, 3 P.m., Council Chambers. The
committee will hold a public meeting an proposed changes in the Council's
planning loan program guidelines. It will also review a request from Metroland
for assistance, changes in staff classifications and Job specifications,
proposed changes in the 1985 human services department's work program and
revisions to the Council's 1984 and 1985 work program and budget.
Metropolitan Systems Committee - Thursday, Dec. 20, 4 p.m., Council Chambers.
The c, •sittse is expected to act on the hearing report on proposed amendments
to pa,. 1 of the Water Resources Management Development Guide/Policy Plan. The
committee will also discuss the impact of aircraft noise on Burnsville, an
acquisition grant amendment request for Bald Eagle -Otter Lake Regional Park in
Ramsey County and the downtown -to -downtown fast link transit proposals. The
the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's consideration of the Kellogg
Corporation contract is also up for discussion. At 5 p.m., the committee will
meet with the Regional Transit Board's Committee of the Whole on light rail
transit.
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission - Thursday, Dec. 20, 4 p.m.,
Conference Room E. The Commission Is expected to select a speedskating rink
site and implementation program. It will be briefed on a feasibility study for
a motorsports facility.
Regional Transit Board/Metro Systems Committee/Committee of the Whole -
Thursday, Dec. 20, 5 p.m. Council Chambers. The group will hear a presentation
on the Hiawatha corridor transportation alternatives analysis and a
presentation on Metro Mobility.
Metro oli tan Parke and Open Space Commission/Committee of the Whole - Thursday,
Dec. 20, - p.m., Conference Room E. The co®ittee will discuss the first
portion of the draft policy plan.
Advisory Committee On Aging - Friday, Dec. 21, 10 a.m., Council Chambers. The
committee will discuss and act upon the Scott County service delivery plan. It
will hear reports from the coordination/advocacy subcommittee on possible
action regarding the Strategy on Aging Task Force recommendations and a request
for a letter of support from the Metro Senior Federation for a grant proposal.
It will also discuss the long-term care report.
December 21, 1984 V DEC "c 619B4
Week of Dec. 24 - Dec. 78 NONO
NOTE: This publication contains a one-wee,list of meetings and agenda Stems
for the Metropolitan Coane.i., its standing committees and zJW sory committees
as well as similar information for the Reg:Onal Transit Board. It is mailed
every Friday to a contact prrson in the region's local goverments and to the
Twin Cities media. The information is current as of the date of publication.
However, meetings and agendas occasionally must be changed. For this reason,
local government Officials planning to attend meetings should verify the
information in advance. Call 291-6464 to do so. Media should continue to call
Ken Reddick, 291-6422, or Lynne Wil:iams, 291-6511, for more information.
Long -Term Care Task Force - Thursday, Dec. 27, 8 a.m., Conference Room E. The
task force will discuse and act on the long-term care report.
Metropolitan and Community Development Committee — Thursday, Dec. 27, 1:30
p.m., Council Chambers. The committee will acton the housing revenue bond
plan for the City of Inver Grove Heights in Dakota County; the report from
the Long -Term Care Task Force; the recommendations on community focal points,
and revisions to the aging Program's policies and procedures manual.
Management Committee - Thursday, Dec. 27, 3 o.m. (or immediately following the
Metropolitan and Community Development Committee meeting), Council Chambers.
The committee will act on changes in the 1985 human services work program and
the revised 1984 and 1985 work programs and budgets.
Metropoli•..in Council - Thursday, Dec. 27, 4 p.a., Council Chambers. The
Council will act on the consent list and the following committee reports:
Metropolitan and Community Development Committer: computerized planning and
davelopment Impact analysis slide presentation; revisions to the aging
program's policy and procedures manual; choice of the next county for an aging
service delivery study; citizen participation plan draft; housing revenue bond
plan for Inver Grove Heights; Criminal Justice Advisory Committee report; and
the report and recommendations of the Telecommunications Task Force.
Metropolitan Systems Committee: hearing report on proposed amendments to the
system plan section of the water resources managems.-,,t development gulde/policy
plans aircraft noise impact on Burnsville; acquisition grant amendment request
for Bald Eagle -Otter Lake Regional Park in Ramsey County; fast -link transit
Proposals; and private enterp•ime participation in Ina transportation planning
Process.
Management Comittee: comparable worth study recommendations; approval of
collateral for investments; contract authorization request; response to
Metroland request for assistance; addition of new job to classification plan
and amendment of the two existing job specifications; revised 1984-1985 work
programs and budgets; and the 1985 human services work program changes.
Environmental Resource* Committee! determination of adequacy of Eden Prairie's
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill final environmental impact statement.
I
The Council will also hear the report of the Committee of the Whole. The
Chair'* report Will include appointments to the Arts Advisory Committee and the
AdviiokV C10*ttah on Aging.
MINUTES OF TILE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD
OF URONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278
HELD ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1984
The regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District /278 was
held on Monday, November 12, 1984.
Present: Dave McKown James Franklin James Setter
Don Anderson William Levering William Fenholt
Kitty Crosby Reuben Palm
UPON NOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the minutes of the
October 22, 1984 regular meeting were approved as presented.
Jim Setter reported to the Board that the Teacher Workshop held on October 26th
was significant and covered areas such as: the Right to Know Law was presented
to the faculty; a computer workshop was held in the middle school; a math text-
book selection on the elementary level for next year and math curriculum on all
3 levels. Mr. Setter stated it was a successful day.
Jim Setter informed the Board of the NSBA Convention to be held March 30 - April
3, 1985, in Annaheim, California. Board members are to contact the District
Office for more information.
Discussion ensued regarding the criteria for the elementary report card. Mr.
Setter stated that the responsibility of the Board was to develop broad criteria
for the report card committee to follow. Members of the report card committee
were present to express their views and also request direction from the Board.
UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board adopted the
following as goals to be presented to the committee:
(1) The report card should be for both Darent and child,
and should maximize the educational experience.
(2) The report card should build self-esteem and promote
confidence as it reflects the development of skills
which enable one to perform to his/her fullest ability.
(3) The report card should relay how the child is learning
and functioning according to his/her own ability to
produce.
The Board felt that narrative would be a very valuable asset for the report
card. The Board requested that tine committee keep the Board informed of their
progress, with a possible report from them sometime in February.
Bill Fenholt explained that because the bid on leasing arrangements for the sur-
veillance system required two week notice prior to bid acceptance, it was
necessary for the Board to again accept the low bid of Marquette Leasing.
UPON MOTION by Reuben Palm, seconded by Bill Levering, the low bid of Marquette
Leasing for the lease agreement covering the purchase of a replacement sur-
veillance system was accepted.
Jeff Walton, mayor of Maple Plain, was present to inform the Board of the direc-
tion the city of Maple Plain intends to take with regard to the Maple Plain
School. Mr. Walton stated that Maple Plain, as a town, welcomes Woods Academy
into the area and is delighted to have them. he stated that the lease agreement
provides for a few years of use of the fields but that in the future this could
change and therefore the city needs to prepare for this possibility. This means
acquiring different property. Because of the work that was done by the people
of Maple Plain in developing the present ball diamonds, warming house, etc., Mr.
Walton stated that the city, at the time they purchase some property, would ask
that the School District consider assisting in the development of these new
grounds as a replacement for the school grounds.
The consensus of the Board was that it would be their intent to cooperate in
this project in the event that the city of Maple Plain does acquire land. The
Board directed the administration to look into this situation from a funding
standpoint.
Dave wcKown introduced Marge Gasch and Marvin Johnson, Orono's representatives
to th, Board of Hennepin Technical Center and Dr. Ron Carter, Director of
Hennepin Technical Center. Mrs. Gasch, Dr. Carter and Mr. Johnson presented an
overview of the programs offered by HTC and also some insight as to the new
areas that are being studied and/or developed. Both Mrs. Gasch and Mr. Johnson
expressed their appreciation to the Bodrd for providing them the opportunity to
serve on the Board of Hennepin Technical Center. An invitation was extended to
Orono's Board, on behalf of HTC, to a dinner on Campos and a tour of the faci-
lity. Mrs. Basch stated that at that time they could recei•: more in-depth
information on the special education and vocational programs of
Dave McKown expressed the Board's appreciation to Marge Gasch ar.: marvin Johnson
for their willingness to represent Orono on the Hennepin Technical Center Board.
Mr. McKown also thanked them for keeping Orono's Board updated on the work of
HTC.
UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the resignation of Vicki
Bradley as District Office Receptionist was accepted, effective November 2,
1984.
Dave McKown asked that the Board take under consideration whether the school
calendar should be changed, as far as starting date, or if the policy now in
effect be continued. After discussion by the Board, it was decided that admi-
nistration should research this subject and report back to the Board.
UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Kitty Crosby, approval was granted to
reduce Zoe Ann Palmer's time from 80% to 60% for the remainder of the 1984-85
school year. This reduction was made at t:e request of Miss Palmer.
Bill Levering MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded, to accept the Kawai grand piano as
presented to the Orono School District from Parents for Orono. The Board
expressed appreciation to all the parents who worked so diligently to provide
this excellent instrument for the Orono students.
Mr. fanholt explained the addition to the Master Contract which would provide
protection of the seniority rights for teachers granted part-time assignments.
UPON MOTION by Reuben Palm, seconded by Bill Levering, the following Amendment
to the Master Contract was approved:
A rttc le I% Section 9.2 (d) Seniorit is hereby amended „y
a ng the o ow ng statement at the end of the first paragraph:
HOWEVER, FULL-TIME TEACHERS WHO REQUEST AND RECEIVE APPROVAL
FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR PART-TIME STATUS SHALL RETAIN FULL
SENIORITY RIGHTS UNDER THIS CONTRACT. REQUESTS FOR INITIATING
OR RENEWING PART-TIME TEACHING ASSIGNMENTS SHALL BE MADE ANNUALLY
BY FEBRUARY 1ST AND THE GRANTING OF RENEWAL REQUESTS SHALL BE
SOLELY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.
UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Reuben Palm, the Cooks' Contract for
1984-85 was approved as presented.
UPON MOTION by Bill Levering, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Food Service
Managers' Contract was tabled until the December loth meeting.
Bill Fenholt explained the bus problem with Holy Name students which evolves
from Holy Name adopting Wayzata'a calendar, even though the school is located
within the confines of the Orono School District. Administration will do
further research on this problem and report back to the Board.
Bill Levering reported to the Board on the Teacher Meet & Confer meeting held on
November 1, 1984. Mr. Levering requested that future curriculum writing teams
report directly to the full Board rather than Just the Teacher Meet & Confer
Committee.
UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Bill Levering, 4h2 Activity fund
Report was approved as presented.
UPON MOTION by Reuben Palm, seconded by Jim Franklin, the bills as covered by
vouchers 046101 through 046216 and 045410 through 045539 were approved as
presented.
UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Bill Levering, the Treasurer's Reports
for June, July, August and September were approved as presented.
UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the meeting was
adjourned.
Approved:
DaveChairman
��s
Ka tc
he ne ros y, Clerk
3
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, MN 55101
DATE: December 5, 1984
TO: RNA Advisory Committee Members and Interested Persons
FROM: Phil Cohen, Chair, HRA Advisory Committee
SUBJECT: Meeting Cancellation
There will be no meeting of the BRA Advisory Committee for the month of
December 1984.
Our next scheduled meeting will be January 9, 1i85•
PC/Imt
S�N0ti%[gn
�' r DEC 1 0 1�4 l �'
i
J�t_ :iVi'I
CITY OF ORONO
wort henngle kumen raular planning beard
4100 Vernon eV%�aVe ieuth, it. leulr park, wlnatreta $5416
�������1YYYYYItaI
tnntpla •t0-fSf1
•oleo
(trrlttr
Walter Benson, Administrator
Village of Orono
Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55727
Dear Mr. Benson:
Dr< nohrr II. 14g0
i 4114
CITY OF ORONO
The three suburban Human Services Councils (Northwest Hennepin Human Services
Council, West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, and South Hennepin Human
Services Council) have been jointly administering the Energy Assistance Program
for the past five years. During those five years, the Human Services Councils
have become acutely aware of some of the energy related needs of low-income
residents.
Energy Issues have been addressed by municipal, county, state and federal
agencies. Often times those activities happen in isolation. With the various
programs working independently as well as a perceived need by the Human Services
Councils to share resources, it seems appropriate that services, resources and
information be closely coordinated. Specifically, the three suburban. Human
Services Councils proposed a Energy Issues Task Force to coordinate conservation
activities between the suburban municipalities, the Natural Resources Corpo-
ration and the Energy Assistance '-ogram. Other functions of the Task Force
could be to jointly sponsor energy programs and identification of housing
problems o' low-income people.
The meetings to discuss the abov- mentioned functions will be held on a bi-
monthly basis. Each meeting would be hosted by a municipality or agency who
would be asked to determine the agenda. We are suggesting that the meetings
be early morning and that coffee and rolls be the responsibility of the host
agency or organization. Members of the Task Force would be representatives
Of the following organizations: Hennepin County Office of Planning and
Development, Hennepin County Housing and Rehabilitation, the tuburben munici-
palities, the suburban Human Services Councils and Natural Resources Corpora-
tion. It seems important that municipal representatives be actively involved
in energy related areas or services such as housing and re -development and
representatives who can have input into polio decisions.
The first meeting is scheduled for 8:01) a.m., January 17, 1985. This letter is
introductory in nature and sent to you to determine the interest you or a
representative from your otganization would have in participating in the
development of an effective Suburban Energy Issues Task Force.
Page two
If yru or a representative is interested In participating, please fill out the
enclosed sheet so we can directly contact that person.
We look forward to working with you in the near future.
Sincerely
Bruce E. Larson
Program Coordinator
BEL/rn
PLEASE RETURN TO: Nest Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
4100 Vernon Avenue South
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
PARTICIPANT FOR SUBURBAN ENERGY ISMS TASK FORCE:
NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESS
PHONE:
NAME:
TITLE:
ADDRESF:
PHONE:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
November 15, 1985
The regular meeting of the Board of Managers of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman
Cochran at 7:35 p.m. on Thursday, November 15, 1984 at the St.
Louis Park City Hall, St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Managers present: Andre, Carroll, Cochran, Lehman,
McWethy, Spensley and Thomas.
Also present were Board advisors Panzer, Reep, Mahady and Macomber.
Approval of Minutes
The Managers reviewed the minutes of the regular meeting of
September 20, 1984. It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre
that the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the motion
carried.
The Managers then reviewed the minutes of the regular
meeting of October 18, 1984, It was moved by McWethy, seconded by
Andre that the minutes be approved as distributed. Upon vote the
motion carriel.
Approval of_Permit Applications
The Managers reviewed a memorandum from the Engineer dated
November 8, 1984, indicating those applications which ccmply with
the applicable standards of the District and which were
recommended for approval on the terms and conditions as set forth
in the written memorandum. Following discussion, it was moved by
Thomas, seconded by McWethy that the following permit applications
be approved subject to all terms and conditions as set forth in
the Engineer's written memorandum:
84-170 Cal Haasken/Dan Lundahl - 60-foot
building setback request on
Schultz Lake, Sec, 06ADC, 7389
Lilac Lane, Victoria.
84-179 William Bohnoff - 132 lineal feet
of rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 30CAA, Upper
Lake Minnetonka, Shorewood.
84-182
Norman Cohen - 90 lineal feet of
rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 12BB, Painter
Creek -Jennings Bay, Minnetrista.
84-183
Clayton Novak - 115 lineal feet
of rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 12BB, Painter
Creek -Jennings Bay, Minnetrista.
84-184
John Shay - 80 lineal feet of
rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 15C, southeast
corner of Crystal Bay, Lake
Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach.
84-187
Hennepin Technical Centers -
construction of two tile ouLlet
water diversion terraces to
control erosion of farm fields
and stop pollution of stream
waters, Sec. 28BD, north of the
intersection of Co. Rd. 6 and Old
Crystal Bay Road and east of
Homestead Trail, Medina.
84-189
Gary Spaulding - 40 lineal feet
of rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 13BB, northwest
corner of Harrisins Bay, Mound.
84-191
George Sprenkle - 225 lineal feet
or rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 26C, western
shore of Cooks Bay, south of
Hardscrabble Point, Mound.
84-192
Peter Pflaum - 103 lineal feet of
rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 71), south shore
of Wayzata Bay, woodland.
84-193
Charles Eitel - 90 lineal feet of
rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 35A, southeast
corner of St. Albans Bay,
Excelsior.
Upon vote the motion carried.
-2-
Tabling of Permit Application
It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the following
application be tabled until all required exhibits have been
received:
84-190 Robert S. C. Peterson - proposed
four home subdivision, Sec. 36B,
north shore of Christmas Lake,
east of Radisson Road and south
of Covington Road, Shorewood.
Upon vote the motion carried
Patrick Fcagale - 3-house residential development, Sec. 3CA,
Fairfield Poad located east and south of the I-494 and Hwy. 12
interchange, Minnetonka. 84-185
The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and
drainage plan approval. The Engineer noted that the project was
in compliance with the City of Minnetonka stormwater management
plan and recommended approval with authorization to issue a permit
upon receipt of an erosion control plan for road construction and
culvert design computations, including the elevation of the
culvert inlet. It was moved by Lehman seconded by Andre that the
application be approved subject to the foregoing condition as
recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion carried.
Derrick Land C,,. - grading and drainage plan for "Market Plaza", a
commercial/residential development within the Lynda Ie-Hub-Nicol let
redevelopment area, Richfield. 84-188
The Engineer reviewed the application for grading and
drainage plan approval. The Engineer advised the Managers that
hard surface coverage would remain approximately the same after
redevelopment of the site. The Engineer also advised the Managers
that the property drains to Richfield Lake which has no outlet,
but that adequate capacity exists in Richfield Lake to handle
runoff from the site. The Engineer recommended approval. It was
moved by Thomas, seconded by Lehman that the application be
approved as recommended by the Engineer. Upon vote the motion
carried.
City of Minnetonka - recreational trail from Gray's Bay Dam to
Crosby Road, Sec. 8D, Gray's Bay Dam, Minnetonka 84-92
The Engineer reviewed the pending application from the City
of Minnetonka for approval to construct a recreational trail
across Gray's Bay Dam. The Engineer indicated that the project
has been approved by the City of F.innetonka. The Engineer
distributed a ^oncept plan recommending the installation of
fencing upstream of the structure on both the north and south
banks and fencing along the pedestrian walkway on the downstream
side of the structure. The Engineer advised the Managers that the
staff has been reviewing methods to limit access to the control
structure anc: to safeguard the passage of pedestrian and bike
traffic across the structure and that discussions are underway
with various public agencies to secure their comments and
reeommendacions regarding safety improvements at the site. The
Managers indicated the desire to receive and review the comments
from the various agencies responding prior to acting on the
application. It was moved by Carroll, seconded by McWethy that
the application be tabled pending receipt of comments from those
agencies from whom comment has been requested by the Engineer.
Upon vote the motion carried.
Erwin Mandel Development Corporation - grading and drainage plan
for 10 mini -storage buildings, floodplain development, Sec. 17CDD,
Louisiana Avenue at Lake Street, St. Louis Park. 84-06
The Engineer distributed a supplement to the Engineer's
Report dated November 13, 1984, and reviewed the background of the
Mandel application for grading and drainage plan approval. The
Engineer advised that the Board denied the application for grading
and drainage plan approval on January 19, 1984, due to the fact
that the proposed facilities for stormwater management and water
quality were not in compliance with District criteria. The
Engineer further stated that in the recent considera-_ion of the
Brutger project (Permit Application No. 84-114), it appeared that
the City's stormwater facilities in that area may meet District
standards and if not, modifications would apparently be made by
the City to bring the system into conformity with the District's
standards. Based on the resolution of the Brutger permit, the
Engineer advised the Board that it was his opinion that the
reasons for the prior denial of the Mandel perm?.t could
appropriately be reconsidered.
The Managers inquired whether the applicant nad requested
reconsideration ir. light of the Brutger permit. The staff
responded that discussions had been continuing between the
District staff, the City staff and the Mandel representatives
regarding the project during the pendency of the Brutger action.
The Managers noted that this property was now within the
floodplain of Minnehaha Creek, and that although the filling issue
was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City of St. Louis
Park, the Managers expressed concern that this area has been
subject to high water conditions in the past. The Managers also
noted a desire to receive the results of the cooperative study now
underway between the City and the District to study the adequacy
of the City stormwater management facilities and suggested that it
-4-
would be appropriate to tahle the application until the next
regular meeting of the Board and to review it at that time in
light of then available information. It was moved by Andre,
seconded by Carroll that the application be tabled until the
December meeting for review at that time. Upon vote the motion
carried.
Correspondence
The Managers noted receipt of correspondence from the
Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts regarding the Annual
Meeting of the Association to be held November 30-December 1.
1984. These included Notice of Meeting, Meeting Agenda,
-- Certificate of Membership and Minutes of the last annual meeting
and meetings of the Association's Board of Directors of June 29th
and September 22nd, 1904. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it
was moved that Managers McWethy and Andre be elected delegates to
the Annual Meeting of the Association and Manager Lehman be
elected an alternate delegate. Upon vote the motion carried.
Chapter 509 Watershed Boundary Revisions
The Engineer distributed a memorandum dated November 14,
1984, indicating that staff has completed the preliminary mapping
of the proposed legal boundary changes with adjacent watershed
districts and watershed management organizations. The Engineer
reviewed those changes with the Managers as they affected the
common boundary between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and
Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission, the Middle Mississippi
Watershed area, the Carver Creek water Management Organization and
the Pioneer Creek Water Management Organization. The Attorney
recommended that, if the Board approved the recommended action,
the staff prepare and submit a petition to the Water Resources
Board promptly and request that the boundary changes for these
areas be included for a single hearing with the petition which is
presently pending with the Water Rasources Board for changes
adjacent to Nino Mile Creek and Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
Watershed District. The Attorney indicated that the petition
would be supported by resolution of the adjacent watershed areas
to the maximum extent practical within these time constraints.
Following discussion and review of the mapping provided by the
Engineer, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Andre that the staff
be authorized to prepare a petition for submittal to the Water
Resources Board requesting the changes in the common boundaries
described in the memorandum of November 14, 1984. Upon vote the
motion carried.
-5-
Treasurer's Retort
President Cochran called upon Treasurer Carroll to present
the Treasurer's Report. Treasurer Carroll advised the Board that
at his request, Mr. Steve Stewart of R. J. Lapic, CPA, was present
and requested Mr. Stewart to present the report. Mr. Stewart
distributed the Treasurer's Report dated November 15, 1984, a copy
of which is attached. Mr. Stewart reviewed the status of the
various funds and the amounts available for investment. Following
review of the Treasurer's Report, it was moved by Thomas, seconded
by Andre that the Treasurer's Report dated November 15, 1984, be
approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon
vote the motion carried.
Mr. Stewart recommended that the Board act to appoint an
auditor to audit the financial records of the District for the
year ending December 31, 1984. It was moved by Andre, seconded by
Carroll that the District appoint Randall Lapic, CPA, 15 Tenth
Avenue South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343, to audit the financial
records of the District for the year ending December 31, 1984.
Upon vote the motion carried.
Mr. Stewart also noted that the Board has an outstanding
receivable due from the City of Minneapolis in connection with the
Cooperative Minnehaha Creek Channel Study. It was moved by Andre,
seconded by Carroll that the staff prepare a report setting forth
the facts regarding these matters and that the report be submitted
to the Board at the next regular meeting. Upon vote the motion
carried.
The Board thanked Mr. Stewart for his attendance and
presentation at the meeting.
CP-5 Painter Creek - Status Report
The Engineer reviewed the status of the Upper watershed
Storage and Retenticn Project in the Painter Creek Subwatershed.
The Engineer advised the Board that plans and specifications had
been submitted to those agencies required to approve the plans and
spec4. fications and that the application for the Department of
Natural Resources' permit is being made. The Engineer also
advised the Board that, pursuant to the action of the Board at the
special meeting on November 8th, letters to individual property
owners submitting offers for the easements have been mailed to the
individual owners. The Attorney advised that the Commissioners
have been appointed by the District Court and distributed a copy
of a letter dated November 13, 1964, sent to the Commissioners by
the Attorney describing the scope of the project and requesting
that the Commissioners not commence viewing of the individual
properties until after December loth in order to allow property
Si:
owners adequate time to review the District's offer of payr..:nt.
The Attorney also advised that the District would be entitled to
start construction of the individual projects after December 26,
1984, by complying with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes
5 117.042 in the event negotiated agreement were not reached with
individual owners by that date.
Headwaters Control Structure - Lake Level Report
The Engineer distributed his monthly lake level report. The
Engineer advised that the discharge through the control structure
has been increased to 150 cfs and that the lake level was slightly
below 929.0. The Engineer advised the Board that at the present
discharge rate, the lake was dropping approximately .01 to .02
feet per day and that at this rate, the lake would probably remain
somewhat above the desired elevation of 928.6 when the structure
is closed and winterized early in December.
Chapter 509 Pol.cy Statement
The Board noted the need to set a meeting to review the
draft policy statements being prepared pursuant to Chapter 509.
The Managers directed that a special meeting be held Thursday,
December 13, 1984, commencing at 4:30 p.m. in the offices of the
District's Engineer, E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian
Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota, and that notice be given of the special
meeting.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the regular
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 9:25
p.m.
3443n
Respectfully submitted,
John E. 'Thomas, Secretary
--7-
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT _
December 20, 1984 n �����i ���r`;
Wayzata City Hall IUIi
7:30 p.m. DEC 1 71984
1. Call to order; present, absent staff. r CITY OF ORG
2. Reading and approval of ni,sutes of the special meeting o
November 8, 1984.
3. Reading and approval of minutes of the regular f
November 15, 1984.
4. Approval of amendment of December 20, 1984, agenda.
5. Hearing of permit applications.
A. 83-112 City of Minnetonka/Minnesota DOT - I-394
freeway and interchange construction project, Sec. 4, T.H. 12
between T.H. 101 and I-494, Minnetonka.
B. 63-126 Minnesota Department of Transportation -
reconstruction of the Cedar Avenue -Lake Nokomis bridge, Sec.
13CCC, 24EBB, Minneapolis.
C. 83-127 Minnesota Department of Transportation -
reconstruction of the Cedar Avenue bridge, Sec. 13BCC, Minneapolis.
D. 84-06 Irwin Mandel Development Cor,. - grading and
drainage plan for 30 mini -storage buildings, floodplain
development, Sec. 17CDD, Louisianna Avenue at Lake Street, St.
Louis Park.
E. 84-11 Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc. - construction of a
boat launching ramp, Sec. 17CCB, 4068 Sunset Drive, West Arm Bay,
Lake Minnetonka, Spring Park.
P. 84-181 Ted Priem - rip -rap shoreline erosion
protection, Sec. 17AAC, Libbs Lake; Lake Minnetonka, Minnetonka.
G. 84-190 Robert S. C. Peterson - four home
subdivision, Sec. 26B, north shore of Christmas Lake, east of
Radisson Road and south of Covington Road, Shorewood.
H. 84-194 M. B. Hagen - shoreline erosion protection,
Sec. 35A, St. Albans Bay at Old Excelsior Blvd. and MacLynn Road
Channel, Excelsior.
I. 84-195 City of Excelsior - rip -rap shoreline
erosion protection and maintenance dredging, Sec. 34AA, western
shore of Excelsior Bay, Excelsior Commons Park.
J. 84-196 Frantz Klodt and Sons, Inc. - commercial
development 'Beltline Business Park', Sec. 6CA, east of Hennepin
County Hi hway 100 south of the C.M.St.P. i P. Railroad tracks and
north of Excelsior Blvd. abutting Lhe nor.'., .vrn shoreline of
Bass Lake, St Louis Park.
R. 84-197 Minneapolis Water Department - relocat,Dn of
watermain, Sec. 14AD, Minnehaha Creek at Cedar Avenue So.,
Minneapolis.
6. Correspondence.
7. Hearing or requests for petitions by public for action by
the WatersF District.
8. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Carroll.
(1) Adminstrative Fund.
B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer.
(1) CP-5 Painter Creek - Status Report.
(2) CP-8 U.S. Highway 100 and Minnehaha Creek -
Status Report.
(3) 1984 Water Maintenance 4 Repair Fund Project
Status.
(4) MCWD - City of Minneapolis Hydraulic Study.
(5) St. Louis Park Stormwater Invertigation -
T.H. 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber.
(1) CP-5 Easement Status.
(2) Hearing on Boundary Changes 1/8/85.
(3) Publl^ officials Liability Insurance Renewal.
(4) Legal/Physical Boundary - Propos^d Policy.
9. Unfinished Business.
A. Rule and Regulation R,,ision/Chapter 509.
B. District Initiated Maintenance Projects.
C. Draft Permit Application Guidelines.
10. Aew Business.
11. Adjournment.
OG13n
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
November 8, 1984
The special meeting was called to order by Acting
Chairman Lehman at 4:55 P.M. at the St. Louis Park City Hall, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota.
Managers present: Lehman, MCWethy, Spensley and
Thomas.
Managers absent: Carroll, Cochran, and Andre.
Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep and Macomber.
Upper wet ersi/ed Storage and Retention Project - Final Plans and
Specifications.
Acting Chairman Lehman noted that the first item for
consideration was the review of final plans and sper '.fications for
Project CP-5 and called upon the Engineer to review the documents
for the Board.
Mr. Panzer briefly summarized the scope of the work,
identifying the location of each individual project and the
purposes of the individual projects. Thereafter, Mr. Panzer
reviewed final plans for the flow control structures, the
construction of sedimentation basins, the channel work in Painter
Creek and the construction of a fish migration barrier.
The Engineer then distributed a comparison of final
estimated costs as of November, 1984, compared to estimated
project costs when the project was ordered in September, 1983.
Mr. Panzer noted that while there were variations for the
individual projects, the overall construction costs of the project
was within $E,000 of the preliminary budget estimate prepared in
September, 1983. Mr. Panzer distributed his detailed cost
estimates showing the derivation of each of the estimated project
costs.
Mr. Panzer then distributed project specifics ...as and
reviewed a proposal form with the Managers. Mr. Panzer reviewed
in detail the presentation of the individual bid items in the
proposal form indicating that some called for unit prices and some
work was requested to be bid on a lump -cum basis.
Mr. Panzer distributed a proposed form of advertisement
for bids and requested approval of the advertisement document and
authorisation to publish the advertisement for bids pursuant to
I
aw. Mr. Panzer explained t"a.t under the proposed time schedule,
the bids would be due in the Engineer's office December 17, 1954.
The Engineer stated that it was his intention to prepare a bid
summary for review by the Board at its regular December meeting.
Manager L%aman inquired whether winter constructing was
required for Project No. 7. The Engineer stated that winter
construction was not required for that project. Manager Lehman
requested that the contract documents be modified to provide that
Project 7 would not be constructed during the winter season ar
woiOA ho t,`.e case for Projects 1 through 6.
Maz,tcer Spensley inquired whether any safety hazard was
presented by the work associated with the outlet at Lake Katrina,
noting that a Hennepin County Park Rererve District bike path
existed in that area. The Engineer explained that the channel at
the location of the bike path after completion of the project,
would have a maximum depth of 2-1/2 feet under high water
conditions and .hat the normal depth would be approximately 1/2
foot shallower than under existing conditions, so that there was
no adverse change with respect to safety at that location as a
result of the project. Following discussion and review of the
plans and specifications and the foregoing issues. it was moved by
Thomas, seconded by McWethy that the plans and sp cifications
presented by the Engineer be approved with the additional
condition that Project 7 not be constructed during the wi,,..
season, that the form of advertisement foc bids be approved, and
the Engineer authorized to publish the advertisement pursue to
law and, in addition, �a appropriate con_trsiction publicat.
Upon vote the motion carried.
Project CP-5 - Arp,l .-a>3 t Value of Easements.
Acting Chairman Lehman noted that the next matter on
the agenda was the consideration of appraisals of th caliie of the
easements being acquired by the District. Acting C' l.4ivr
called upon the Attorney to review the status of t' '
T:,e Attorney ,+'vised the Board that ar-
been received from Mi. William H. Cushman, rend
opinion of the 'aly
.e of ':e property rights be' J. i s
I ll strict for Pre; act CP-5 and any other damaoo-. a, c . l.t)i r.h.i
tak-ng.
The Attcr,..y explsiu,_ that Mt. Cushman had determined
an underlying id value for fee title to -he properties based on
their highes+ 1 best use , ether prpture or crop land, marsh
-2-
l Lnd, small or large building sites. The Attorney then explained
that Mr. Cushman concluded that the flowage easements damaged the
properties in question by 20% of their underlying value and that
that percentage was applied to the value of the properties in
question.
The Attorney explained that the appraiser's opinion was
that the easements for the flow control structures, the
sedimentation basins, and the ingress and egress easements should
be treated for compensation purpose: as if they were taking of fee
title and that the fee value (. the mderlying property was
therefore considered to be the fair market value of the easement
by the appraiser. The appraiser also valued the temporary
construction easements for Project No. 7.
The Attorney explained that it was the opinion of the
appraiser that the ingress and egress easements on Parcels 1 and
23 caused damage to the balance of those properties. Acting
Chairman Lehman noted that K. . and Mrs. Sotterill, Mr. and Mrs.
Sorenson, and Mr. and Mrs. Connors and family were present at the
meeting and asked whether any of them wished either to address the
Board or ask questions regarding the presentations either of the
Attorney or the Engineer.
The residents present inquired how the appraiser knew
what the extent of the increased water levels would be after
construction of the project. The Engineer explained that the
appraiser made the assumption that the Engineer's projected
increases were in fact accurate for the purpor- if preparing the
appraisals. The -sidents asked what -old or, if the
Engineer's projec-lons were wrong. on responded that
the compensation proposed was based assumption that the
Engineer was correct and if in fact ;ineer's projection -
were error-.ous for the runoff conditi. .asumed in designing the
projects, the owners would be entitled to compensation for
whatever additional taking occurred which had not been compensated
for.
The residents inquired regarding assessed valuations of
their properties and whether the assessed valuations would
decrease as a result of the project. The Attorney explained that
the assessed valuation is developed by the City Assessor not by
the watershed nistrict Board, but that each resident had the right
to :egne=t ine Assess to revalue that resident's property if -tie
reside felt that a ition in the assessed value was warra.. '
Mr. Connors objected to the inclusion in the lega
ascriptions of a portion of his property adjacent. to Ingersu�.
ad. Mr. Connors stated that that easement area had not been
shown on the mapping which was presented to him pre!iously and
-3-
stated that in his view that modification represented an improper
change in the scope of the project. The Engineer explained that
the small area in question could be excluded from the easement
taking and that the District would be willing to enter into an
agreement'with Mr. Connors to that effect. Acting Chairman Lehman
explained that it is customary that, when detailed survey work is
done, additional knowledge is gained that was not available
previously. Manager Lehman stated that this was the case here
since at the time the project went to public hearing in August
1983, the detailed topographic surveys were not available but that
such surveys, after they were completed in April 1984, did reveal
the existence of the small area on Mr. Connors' property adjacent
to Ingerson Road that may be below the new flood elevation of
Painter Marsh. The Attorney explained the District had en
obligation to include that portion of Mr. Connor's property that
would be affected by the project unless an agreement were
otherwise reached with Mr. Connors, since the project could affect
that property and the owner would be entitled to just compensation
for any damage caused by the project.
Following discussion of the appraisals, Manager Thomas
offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded
by Manager McWethy:
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
("District") has, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 117, commenced an action to acquire certain
easements by eminent domain as authorized by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 112.43, Subd. 1(6); and
WHEREAS, the District has, pursuant to Minn. Stat.
S 117.042, given notice of its intent to acquire title
and possession of the easements following ninety (90)
days notice; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. S 117.042 requires the District,
prior to the taking of title and possession of the
easements, to tender a sur,. equal to the District's
approved appraisal of value; and
WHEREAS, the District has received appraisals prepared
by Willian. a. Cushman, MAI, of parcels described in the
eminent domain action as Parcels 1 through 25,
inclusive; and
,.HEREAS, the Managers have reviewed the appraisals and
find that the appraisals represent fair and just
assessments of the damages resulting to the individual
parcels as a result of the taking; and
-4-
WHEREAS, the District desires to negotiate all
easements where possible to avoid the cost and time of
an eminent domain proceeding;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The appraisals prepared by William H. Cushman, MAI
with a valuation date of November 1, 1984, for Parcels
1 through 25, inclusive, are hereby approved by the
Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
2. The District staff is directed and cuthorized to
make an offer of payment for each of the easements 1-25
based upon the approved appraisals.
3. That in the event the offer made is not acceptable
to the owner, the staff take such steps as are
necessary to tcrder the amount of the approved
appraisal of value pursuant to statute prior to the
date of taking title and of possession.
Upon vote the motion carried
-rutger Companies, Inc. - Permit Application No._84-114
Acting Chairman Lehman called upon the Engineer to
review the status of the Brutger Companies' project within the
City of St. Louis Park. Present on behalf of Brutger Companies
were Bill Meyer, Engineer for the project, Phil Blot, Architect,
and Skip MCQueun, Project Manager. Present on behalf of the City
of St. Louis Park were William Thibault, Planning Director, Don
Rye, Planning Staff, and Richard Koppy, Director of Public Works.
The Engineer reviewed the chronology of the project
indicating that on June 15, 1984, the applicant applied for a
grading and drainage plan •.mit from the District and that this
permit application was reviewed by the Board of Managers, July 19,
1984. The Engineer explained that the City had in place an
existing stormwater system but that the Engineer's Office had not
been able to determine that the City system met applicable
District standards. The Engineer explained that the Board on July
19, 1984, tabled the application pending a determination of the
adequacy of the City drainage system, or until the developer had
revised the drainage plan to provide for on -site management of
stormwater produced by the project.
The Engineer stated that on October 2, 1984, the site
was visited by District Staff ac9 that project construction was
observed. At the direction of Chairman Cochran, the applicant was
notified on October 5, 1984, that grading activity on the site was
in violation of District requirements.
-5-
The matter was reviewed by the Board of Managers at the
October 18th meeting, at which time there appeared to be
uncertainty about the requirements of the City of St. Louis Park
regarding site drainage. As a result, the Managers directed that
the matter be placed or. ,fte agenda for this special meeting for F
further report as to its status.
The Engineer explained that the current status of the
matter was that the City has undertaken with the District, a
cooperative study to determine the adequacy of the City's
stormwater system in that area. The results of that study should
be available within four tD six weeks. The Engineer advised that
if the study indicates that the City's system is adequate, on -site
ponding should not be required and that the onll remaining issue
would then be the adequacy of the project's erosion control
measures.
The Engineer also noted that a portion of the City's
ponding system is now below the regional flood elevation of the
Creek, although when the stormwater system was originally
constructed, the area in question was not within the floodplain of
Minnehaha Creek. The Engineer explained that road construction in
the vicinity had created an opening whereby flood waters would
back into this area unless sandbagged, thereby inundating the
ponding facilities undor heavy runoff conditions.
Manager Spensley observed that in his view the issues
were whr:her the existing stormwater system was adequate to meet
District standards and whether the area would be protected in
order to prevent flood flows from entering this subwatershed from
Minnehaha Creek. The Engineer in response to a further question
indicated that data thus far provided by the City indicated that
if any changes were required to cause the system to conform with
District requirements, thcse changes would probably be feasible.
Mr. William Thibault, Planning Director, City of St.
Louis Park, addressed the Board. Mr. Thibault stated that the
City has developed a full storm sewer system for this area which
went through public hearings in the mid-1970's. Mr. Thibault
stated that the City's system was designed to handle adequately
stormwater flows generated by that area. Mr. Thibault discussed
the general process of referral of applications from the City to
the Watershed District where those applications are in the
floodplain of Minnehaha Creek, and indicated that the City had no
procedure for referring applications outside of the floodplain to
the District for review. Mr. Thibault and the Managers discussed
the possibility of considering additional referral procedures
between the City and the District.
-6-
Mr. Bill Meyer, Engineer for the project, addressed the
Board. Mr. Meyer stated that the applicant had submitted an
erosion control plan and a drainage plan and that the City had
indicated that the City system for stormwater handling in that
vicinity was adequate. He stated that it was his understanding
from discussions with the District's staff th:,t the City system
might not be adequate and stated that he felt •:he developer was
caught between potentially inconsistent views end requirements.
Mr. Meyer stated that the developer was willing to implement
additional erosion control measures if those were required by the
District. Mr. Meyer stated that he encouraged the City and the
District to promptly proceed to complete the study to determine
the adequacy of the city system.
Manager Spensley inquired of Mr. Meyer what action was taken
when he recitived the October 5th letter of the Engineer. Mr.
Meyer stated that he immediately called Mr. Panzer and discussed
tho statvs of the matter and inquired regarding the nature and
extent if the difficulty, and the likelihood that the District
might take enforcement action to stop construction on the project.
Following discussion and review by the Board, it was moved
by Spensley, seconded by McWethy that the permit be granted in
recognition of the fact that it appeared likely that the city's
stormwater facilities could prove to be adequate under District
standards, and in light of the verbal assurances by Mr. Thibault
that if the system were determined to be inadequate, the City
would make necessary and feasible modifications to the system to
bring it into conformity with District standards. Upon vote the
motion carried.
There being no further business to come before the special
meeting, Acting Chairman Lehman declared the special meeting
adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
3441n
Respectfully submitted,
John E. Thomas
secretary
ma
DEC � 19M
league of minnesota cities
MEMORANDUM December 21, 1984
TO: Mayors, Managers, Clerks, Legislative Contacts
FROM: Donald Slarer, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1985 LMC/AMM LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE
The 1985 LMC/AMM Legislative Action Conference will be held at the
Sr. Paul Radisson Hotel on Kellog; Boulevard on Tuesday, January 29 -
Wednesday, January 30.
At this conference, LNG member cities will review and adopt 1985 LMC
City Policies. The proposed policies recommended by the LNG
Legislative Commirlee have been mailed to member cities for disrribu-
tion. It is suggested that you use the January city council meeting
as an opporrur.ity to review those policies and to determine yout
participation in the conference.
Discussion of the proposed stare tax reforms and direction of future
srare-local fiscal relations will be among the topics highlighted
during the conference.
Please check the December and January issues of Minnesota Cities or
the form attached here and complete registration information. Return
your form as soon as possible to be sure of raking advantage of
advance registration fees and to assure hotel accommodations.
Legislators will be sent invitations -o the LMC/AMM Reception,
scheduled from 5:30-1:30 p.m., Tuesday, !enuory 29, following the
close of the LNG Pclicy Adoption portion of the conference. if
nlan rn &trend_ nleue let vour legislator know that you extract r
The conference agenda is printed here and in the January issue of the
League magazine.
1985 LMCJAMM LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFERENCE PROGRAM
ST. PAUL RADISSON HOTEL
Tuesday, January 29
10:00 a.m. Registration (lower lobby at foot of escalator)
11:00 a.m. Pre -Conference Program
Development Tools for Cities: The Future Course of State Legislative Policy
Panelists: Senator Larry Pogemiller, Minneapolis
Representative William Schreiber, Brooklyn Park
12 Noon
Luncheon -Opening Session
Finance and Tax Issues in the'85 Session
Speakers: Representative David Jennings,
Speaker, Minnesota House of Representatives
Senator Roger Moe,
Majority Leader, Minnesota State Senate
1:45 p.m.
LMC Legislative Policy Adoption
5:00 p.m.
Ask the Lobbyists - Question & Answer Period
LMCJAMM Legislative Issues for'85 Session
5:30 p.m.
Reception for City Officials and State Legislators
Wednesday, January 30
8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast
The Future of the Public Employees Retirement Association
Issues: Merger Proposals; Supplemental Defined Contributions;
Health Benefits to Pension Retirees
Speaker: Senator Donald Moe, St. Paul
Member, Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement
9:30 a.m.
The Future of State -Local Fiscal li latiom
relists: Robert Ebel, Executive Director
Minnesota Tax Study Commission (or staff)
Jay Kiedrowski, Deputy Commissioner of Finance
Representative William Schreiber, Chair, House Tax Committee
Senator Doug Johnson, Chair, Senate Tax Committee
11:15 a.m.
LMC Legislative Briefing - LMC Legislative Priorities for 1985 State Legislature
11:45 a.m.
LMC Day on the Hill - LMC Member City Orficials Lobby
through
Local Lawmakers on City Policies
afternoon
Plan now to attend
e1Ce r League of Minnesota Cities
e�e+Y t10 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Gp� k{a 1985 Legislative Action Conference
♦ t7 Tuesday and Wednesday. January 29-30,1985
Recision St. Paul Hotel
City
Name
Name
Name
Name
Name
(Please print or type)
Title
Title
Tide —
___ _ Title —
_ Tide —
Registrar ion fee: $50.00 advance
f55 40 on•site
Check enclosed in the amount of f
Fee includes conference registration, Tuesday luncheon, Tuesday reception, and Wednesday continental breakfast.
Mail to: Gayle Brodt, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101
— — — — — — --- — —------------- — -- — --- — —-------- — —
�� Rr3dis50f1 Hotel St. Paul DON'T FORGET —
MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER
PAYABLE TO RADISSON HOTEL ST PW L
DO NOT SEND CURRENCY
ORGANIZATION LEAGUE -OF MIIdsF=A CITIES
FUNCTION 1985 LEGISLATIVE E'ER NCE -DATES IN I M 29 — 30• I985
ALL PEDnETs FOR THE ARGUE BROW MUST at RECEIVED By January 19. 1985
pinta IEEure accommo atom for Pnnl Or TYpr
NAME COMPANY —
L1111 Ift,
ADDRESS
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
SHARING ROOM WITH NO OF PERSONS
CHECKINTIME 3:00 PM
CHECKOUTTIME 1:00Piv
Accommodations will not be guaranteed without a check for the 1st night's deposit. or your noior CMJit card numr.ar n
requested below. Should you prefer not to guarantee your NeervArion, your room will be held only until 6:00 P IT, if your
arrival day You will be charged for the tit night it reservations are not cancelled b hours prior to Arrival
CREDIT CARD 1 _ ❑ AMEX 0 DINERS CLUB O VISA O MASTERCARD EXPIRATION DATE ..
IPLEASE CHECe d Er
$50. SDKU
$58. DDUME OCCUPANCY
Mall to: Reservation Office, Radison St. Paul Hotel, 11 East Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55101
IF RATE REQUESTED IS NOT AVAP.ABLE. NEAREST AVAILABLE RATE WILL BE ASSIGNED THERE 15 AN ADDITIONAL 5 8DO
CHARGE FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH OCCUPANT IN EACH ROOM RATES ARE 5;UBJECT TO APPLICABLE TAXES
NO CHARGE FOR CHILDREN UNDER is OCCUPYING THE SAME ROOM AS PARENTS
DeamDer EME 5
1985 LMC Legislative Bulletin
How will the 1985 Legislature affect cities?
Keep up-to-date on action at the Capitol by subscribing to the LMC
Legislative Bulletin.
Each Week the Bulletin will provide:
• sumn:nies of bill inirodtaikms of interest to cities - A weekdm-week review of what happened to bills
relatuag to ON gm'emmmt e Action Alerts — requests for out offwwds to contact legislators on important
issue, - Analysis of legislation asp m w it will affect vines - Ibghlights of the week - Tips on where to
get information on lepslaine nvaaers
J n
The city manager, administrator. or clerk of
each member city will receive a compGmen-
tl
r� `\
tary copy of the Bulletin each week; so will
district coordinators and legislative contacts.
Other city officials can subscribe for $15
1\
't
�4P for the session, non-members for LR3o.
The first issue will come out the first
...
week of the session which begins on
_ .. _ Januan 8 1985.
l
�" This will be an
ait" , important session
��— for cities ...
1985 Bulletin order form
Sank•
Stay informed
Pavmni rnckxed
Title _ $15 (member)
Address
fa (non member)
caytstaa, zn,
kelum to: gave MHAe. Lvrgu oa %fi nw,da 01. , IM I mrrvn 1u- F. . M Paul. MS i.Aaa
I III 1
„�11III�111
U league of minnesota cities
December 17, 1984
TO: Mayors, Managers, and City Clerks
FROM: Mary Anderson, President
RE: Local Government Aid Legislative Policy
The policy on local governme or aid is nor in,luded in this packet.
It will be sent separately to all mayors, m pagers and city clerks
the first week in January per action of the League Board of Directors
on December 12th.
As you are aware, the League has been working the oast year on
developing a formula for local government aid (LGA) diarributien that'
would be considered fairer than the current system. A Policy Task
Force worked six months to develop a policy statement. that would
serve as a framework for development of a specific formula. Thar
policy statement was shared with the full membership for review and
cement in the spring of last year and the adopted statement was
published in the League magazine in Seprpmber.
A aubcomittee of the full Revenue Sources Policy Cc=irree, called
the LGA Technical Caamirtee, has been working hard analyzing
alternative formulas. The Technical Comirr.ee has come up with a
formula that they feel might be well received by a majority of the
cities in Minnesota. They requested additional time to further
analyze the formula and to project its impact over the next 3 to 5
years. Given the importance of this issue, the League Board of
Directors has granted them additional time.
The revised schedule for review and considerar.>,, of the local
government aid legislative po l.cy is :
December 19 - LGA Technical Committee makes its final rec more ndations
on a formula and policy statement.
December 27 - 9'30 a.m. 45 member Reve?ue sources comirree reviews
the LGA formula and pclicy and makes a.e tee commendation to the Board
tf Directors
December 27 - 2:00 p.m. League Board of Directors acting as the
League Legislative Cosmairree approves final LGA formula and policy
reccmendations to be submitted to the membership
!over)
t B3 unmer•s'ty avenue east. st oaul minnesota 55 O 161 21227 5600
2.
Firer. weep in January - Proposed LCA formula and policy seat to all
mayor,, managers, and city clerks. Will be accompanied with
apr.opriate background mar•riala and analysis.
January 29 - Full membership votes on proposed legislative policies
at the Legislative Action Conference in Sr. Paul
We realise that •ending out. the LCA policy and formula on a different
time frame than the other policies will cause some inconvenience for
a me members. However, we felt that LCA is an important enough issue
to merit special consideration,
1985
Proposed
City Policies
and Priorities
For dlsttibutfon to all member officials
All city clerks and administrators receive a copy
of the proposed policies for distribution to all
officiale. Each mayor will also receive a copy.
Additional copies are available from the League
office.
LMC Legislative Study Committees have developed
these policies and the LMC Legislative Ccsittee
is recommending them to the membership. Each
policy has an A. B, or C priority. An explanation
of each level is in the Forward.
Please review these proposed policies before the
1985 Legislative Conference. City officials will
adopt legislative policies at the Legislative
Conference on Tuesday. January 29 at the St. Paul
Radisson Motel, 11 E. Kellogg Blvd. Please feel
free to cortact league staff with questions or
concern[
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
185 Universiay Avenue East
St. Paul, Minnesota 51701
TAILE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Governmen .uiw and General Legislation ....................... 1 -
Personnel and Public Safety ........................................ 11 - 21
Land Use, Energy, Environment, and Transportation .................. 23 - 31
Development Strategies ............................................. 33 - 'A
Revenue :our...es .................................................. 39 - 4-
Federal Legislation ................................................ 49 - 53
Foreword
One of the most important purposes of the League is to serve as a vehicle
through which municipal officials throughout the state can define their mutual
problems and develop positive policies and proposals for their solution.
To accomplish this purpose a three -step consultative process has been
established providing for the study of issues by committees of municipal
officials, the review of the resulting recommendations by the Legislative
Committee composed of the Board of Directors and the study committee
chairpersons, and final adoption at an annual legislative conference attendee by
representatives of all member cities.
The policy statements and legislative proposals contained herein are the
result of this process and are intendec to be adopted for the biennial
legislative session but subject to review and amendment between the first and
second year. Thus, they will provide the Le-gue Boa•.rd of Directors and the
staff with a continuing source of guidance when testifying before legislative
committees and taking other actions which have legislative or policy
implications.
Priority designation. The priority designation is indicated next to the
title of each proposed policy. These priorities were developed by the study
committees and reviewed and, in some cases, modified by the Legislative
Committee.
The priorities are intended to give additional guidance to the League Board
and staff in implementing the League's legislative program.
"A" priority indicates a major issue, on where the League would introduce
legislation or would work actively with other groups to seek new laws and
regulations.
"B" priority indicated items that are important tr cities but where the
League would probably spend substantially less time unless the legislature or
other groups mounted a major effort to which LMC had to respond. While the
League might initiate legislation on a "B" priority item, these world be
relatively non -controversial items, or those where most of the research has
already been completed.
"C" priority indicates items where the League would respond onlv when the
issue is raised by other groups.
December 17. 1984
TO: LMC Member Cities
FROM: Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel b Helen Schendel, Associate Director
RE: Government Structure and General Legislation Proposed Policies
The attached policies have been adopted by the Legislative Committee ar.d are
prioritized below. These policies as adopted will be brought to the general
membership at the Legislative Conference on January 29, 1985.
Number
Policy Title
Priority
GSGL-1
Open Meetings
A
GSGL-2
Absentee Balloting
A
GSGL-3
Furch�sing Authority of Plan B Managers
B
GSGL-4
Towing of Abandoned Vehicles
B
GSGL-5
Precinct :3oundary Changes
B
GSGL-6
Mandates
B
GSGL-7
Tort Liability
B
GSGL-8
State Licensing of Contractors
B
GSGI.-9
Cable Television
B
GSGL-10
State Audits and City Financial Reporting
Requirements B
GSGL-11
Collateral for Depositories
B
GSGL-12
Government Training Services Funding
B
GSGL-13
Uniform Local Government Election Day
B
GSGI.-14
Campaign Financing and Disclosure
B
GSGL-15
Voting Equipment
B
GSGL-16
Creation of State ACIR
C
GSGL-17
Data Practices
C
GSGL-18
Optional Poll Hours
C
GSGI.-19
City Election Campaigns
C
GSGL-20
Election Day Registration
C
GSGL-21
Absentee Voting
C
GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE. AND CENERAL LEGISLATION PROPOSED Y(i1,1 'iES
GSGL-1. OPEN MEETINGS (A)
The League recommends that the open meeting law be amended to conform to
the data practices act.
City officials strongly support the basic premise of the open meeting
law --to assure the public's right to be informed about the conduct of public
business. Experience with this law since 1974, however, indicates clearly that
there are areas where the legislation should be amended in the public interest.
The League believes that there are certain specific instances where the public
interest would to better served by permitti►ig a local governing body to meet in
executive or id session. These instances include certain discussions
relating to employees such as "hiring" interviews, discussions regarding the
purchase or sale of land for a public purpose, and discussions of information
protected under the Data Practices Act. These latter situations are parti-
cularly troublesome since it is often necessary for the council to choose
between violating either the open meeting law or the data practices act.
Additionallv, the League opposes any legislative attempt to alter the
recent court ruling that the open meeting law applies only to meetings where a
u orum of the governing body or its established committees is present. The
rulin, clarified the law which was often viewed as applying to any meeting
between two cffice holders. Limiting the application of the law to gatherings
of a quorum or more is a common sense approach to implementing the statute and
should not be altered.
GSGL-2. ABSENTEE BALLOTING (A)
The League supportF. the use of punch card voting devices for absentee
balloting in health care facilities and mailed absentee ballots.
Currently, the law allows the use of punch card devices for absentee
balloting when a voter applies in person to the municipal clerk for an absentee
ballot. The League recommends that the law he expanded to include use of punch
card devices for all absentee balloting, including mailed ballots and absentee
balloting in health care facilities.
GSGL-3. PURCHASING AUTHORITY OF PLAN B MANAGERS (B)
The League supports changing the purchasing authority of city managers in
Plan B cities from $1,000 to conform to the figures in the Uniform Municipal
Contracting Law.
Currently the law allows Plan B city managers to make purchases under
$1,000 without council approval. :"his provision has not been changed for many
years and inflation has seriously eroded the utility of the provision. The law
should be amended to increase the figure to the dollar amounts in the uniform
municipal contracting law which allows purchases under $10,000 to be made
relatively easily.
GSGL-4. TOWING OF ABANDONED VEHICLES ();)
The League supports legislation clarifying the authority of cities to
impound abandoned motor vehicles.
Recently, the legislature passed Minnesota Stritute 465.75 which
prohibits a private vehicle tower from removing a motor vehicle from private
property unless he has the permission, of the owner of the vehicle or of the
owner of the property. While the intent of this statute to proh.hit hawkish
towing companies from improper towing practices is laudable, the ramifications
of the law go too far.
Cities are authorizes' to impound abandoned motor vehicles and
Minnesota Statutes 168B.04 provide a detailed process to accomplish the
removal of health hazards and eye sores. Unfortunately, the recent
legislative act could be construed to prohibit cities from utilizing private
towers to remove and impound abandoned or junked automobiles. Cities could be
forced to use its own employees and equipment because it is not "in the business
of towing." The law should he amended by adding an exclusion for private towers
who act at the direction of a city following the procedures prescribed in
Minnesota law.
GSGL-5. PRECINCT BOUNDARY CHANGES (B)
The League supports legislation to Provide a more orderly way it which to
opal with redistricting after a legislative reapportionment plan is filed.
Current law requires counties to redistrict county commissioner districts
within 180 days after receiving final census; figures. Cities are not permitted
to change precinct boundaries during a five year period ending January 1 in a
year ending in two. Therefore, counties following city ward and precinct lines
use ola boundaries, which in many Lases will need to be changed before the 1992
elections.
GSGL-6. MANDATES (B)
The League opposes any additional mandates unless the legislature
rovides adequate revenue sources to implement the law.
One of the most serious problems facin€ cities is the growth in the number
and cost of federal and state -mandated programs which substitute the judgment',
of Congress and the State Legislature for local budget priorities. Recent
examples of costly mandated programs include comparable worth, employee right
to know, legal compliance audits, newspaper publications, among many others.
Special bills to address this problem on an ad hric basis will not provide a
permanent or statewide solution to these problems. The League therefore asks
the legislature to consider legislation which requires the state tc adopt a
policy of deliberate restraint on its mandated programs, including a mandatory
fiscal note id,ntifving local government costs on any new mandated programs when
-4-
GSGL-6. MANDATES (B) (cont'd)
they are introduced in the legislature and a statement of compelling statewide
interest to accompany all state mandates. Revenues or alternative revenue
producing mechanisms other than the general property tax subject to levy limits,
must accompany new mandates. Also, the legislature should repeal obsolete,
unnecessary, and unduly restrictive mandatory laws and rules.
GSGL-7. TORT AND DRAM SHOP LIABILITY (B)
The League supports the continued existence of the Municipal Tort Liability
Act and recommends that the legislature amend the dram shop law to ensure the
availability of insurance.
1) The Municipal Tort Liability Act was enacted to protect the public
treasury while giving the citizen relief from the arbitrary, confusing, and
administratively expensive prior ooctrine of sovereign immunity with its
inconsistent and irrational distinctions between governmental and proorietaty
activities. The act has served that purpose well in the past, however, courts
frequently forget or ignore the positive benefits secured to citizens damaged by
public servants as a result of enactment of the comprehensive act which includes
some limitations on liability and some qualifications of normal tort claims
procedure. The special vulnerability of far-flung government operations to
debilitating tort suits continues to require the existence of a tort claims act
applicable to local governments or local governments and the state. Recent
changes to increase the dollar amounts recoverable by plaintiffs were League
supported and should be adequate to satisfy any reasonable claim.
2) Recently, the market for dram shop insurance has deteriorated
dramatically. Many cities are having trouble getting renewal quotes on their
dram shop coverage, and those which have gotten quotes have seen extremely large
increases in the premium (in several instances more than ten times last year's
premium). The problem is especially severe for cities with on -sale
establishments or those which have had any claims in the recent past.
Existing legislation directs the state insurance department to establish an
assigned ri.k plan "if necessary". The League recommends that the legislature
hold hearings on the availability and cost of dram shop insurance as well as on
the underlying statite creating dram shop insurance liability to determine the
cause of recent problems, and to act to ensure that insurance is available at a
reasonable cost to cities and others operating liquor stores.
GSGL-8. STATE LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS (B)
The League opposes the state's takeover of trade contractor licensing.
Licensing of general trade contractors and various other activities has
long been a local prerogative, and the mechanism for license review, issuance,
and enforcement is already in place. The primary reason that local licensing
has been successful and therefore maintained at the local level is that
GSGI,-8. STATE LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS (A)
inspection and enforcement personnel reside at the local level, know the area
and activities, and are familiar with local ordinance and restrictions, thus
providing better and faster enforcement.
Suggestions have been made to form a statewide licensing authority and
split the revenue among the licensing agency and various municipalities with the
cities -Maintaining enforcement tasks. It is questionable uncle: _his arrangement
if either the agency or municipalities would have enough funds to accomplish the
respective tasks. The current proposals seem to overly cn:aplicate the existing
system which is effectively regulating the contractors and may result in a
reduction of small contractors who c-perate in only a limited number of
communities.
GSGL-9. CABLE TELEVISION (B)
1. The League supports the current state cable law which emphaGizes the
i _ of local government in the Franchising process.
2. The League also supports continued funding for the State Cable
Communications Board aid its idle as a separate board rather than part of
another board or agency.
Many Minnesota cities receive cable TV service, and under present state and
federal law, cities are responsible for setting rates, establishing a franchise,
and imposing franchise fees. The League believes this law has .allowed local
communities to provide input into an imnortant community service and that it
should not be modified to diminish loc control. The cable board had providel
valuable aid and expertise to cities in establishing and regulating cable TV,
including insulating cities from anti —rust lawsuits and therefore should be
continued in its current form.
GEGL-10. STATE AUDITS AND CITY FINANCIAL REPORTIN; REQUIREMENTS (B)
The League supports continuation of the existing auditing and financial
reporting requirements for cities.
Minnesota has one of the most modern and rigorous systems of oversight of
municipal finances in the nation. The state auditor currently reviews annual
financial reports of cities. Cities over 2,500 must have annual audits and the
state auditor has the authority to audit a city upon receipt of a petition.
The state auditor should not be given the power or responsibility to audit local
governments on a regular basis. The private sector is fully competent to
conduct governmental audits and may be more economical and practical than a
state agency.
GSGI.-11. COLLATL;?.Ai FOR DEPOSITORIES (b)
The League opposes any reduction in the amount of collateral which
depositories must provide to secure public funds that exceed the coverage of
federal insurance.
Depositories now are required to col'_ateralize the deposits of local
government in the amount of 110 percent. This law is necessary to protect local
public treasuries from the dangers of financial institution closures. The
legislature should recognize, however, insurance provided by the National Credit
Union Association to the same extent it recognizes insurance provided by the
Federal Depository Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation (FSLIC).
GSGL-12. GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE FUNDING (B)
The League supports continued state financial funding for the Government
Training Service.
The Government Training Service (GTS) has been invaluable in maximizing
training opportunities while minimizing training costs for local government
officials and staff over the past six years. Both the need and the demand for
services are greater than ever during these times of tight budgets. GTS
continues to respond on behalf of all local jurisdictions in Minnesota by
developing innovative, low-cost alternatives and exploring cost-effective
delivery systems. The legislature should continue state financial support for
GTS.
GSGI.-13 UNIFORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION DI.Y (B)
The League opposes the designation of a uniform local government election
day.
Home rule charter cities currently have the authority through their
charters to designate when they want t;, hold their local elections. Statutory
cities may establish eithe. an odd or eves. year November election date.
Decisaoi.:, affecting only local units of government should be made at the
local lev:l unless an overriding state interest can 'se demonstrated. The League
believes that there is no statewide necessity to provide for a uniform local
government election day. However, if the legislatur- enacts a uniform local
government election day, the following features must be included:
1. Home rule charter cities should retain the option of settin6 their own
election date.
2. Mur.'cipal primary elections should continue to
3. All direct costs of state -mandated changes and additions to present
city election duties should be paid by the state.
GSGL-14. CAMPAIGN AND FINANCE DISCLOSURE (B)
The League supports legislation which would simplify the election process
so that it would encourage rather than discourage candidates for local office.
1. Eliminating any distinction between types o campaign committees and
reporting requirements.
2. Providing the option of any size city to adopt an ordinance to require
campaign and finance disclosure.
3. Opposes any state -mandated requirement f candidates for city office
to file statements of economic interest.
4 Opposes campaign contributicr, limits or reporting requirements in
cities less than 20,000 popu'ation.
GSGL-15. VOTING EQUIPMENT (C)
The League supports present law which allowF a city the option of selecting
which state -approved equipment it determines will best suit its needs and
opposes any state -mandated system of voting equipment.
GSGL-16. CREATION OF STATE AIR (C)
The League supports the creation of a state -local intergovernmental
relations advisory committee.
Recently, the State Planning Agency hay, advocated the creation of a state
version )f the federal advisory commission en intergovernmental relations which
would advise the executive and legislative branc:-s of state government on
important issues affecting stag -local relations. Representatives of both state
and local governments would be appointed tc serve. Local government members
would be appointed by their respective statewide associations.
GSGL-17. DA1A PRACTICES (B)
The League supports extension of the data practices act to cover deceased
individuals for a reasonable period of time.
The current data practices act limits the definition of individuals covered
by the act to irclude only the living. The definition results in government
being forced to disseminate information about a deceased individual which may be
damaging to the individuals survivors. Sound public policy would dictate
continuing the classification of data on a deceased individual for a reasonable
period -f time.
GSGL-18. OPTIONAL POLL HOURS (C)
The League opposes current law that mandates all cities, regardless of size
to have their polls open 7:00 am to 8:00 pm for state elections.
Prior to 1983, cities under 1,000 population, located outside the
metropolitan area could by resolution fix the poll hours no later than 9:00 am
for a state general election and no later than 5:00 pm for a state prim;,:ry.
This flexibility would reduce costs to very small cities.
The i,eague also supports legislation for municipalities to set their
polling hours by referendum.
GSGL-19. CITY ELECTION CAMPAIGNS (C)
The League supports extending income tax credits for contributions to city
election campaigns.
Candidates should be encouraged to seek breader backing from among
constituents by extending state income tax credit- t..i cover contributions to
city election campaigns.
GSGL-20. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION (C)
The League supports voter registration prior to election day and encouraged
legislation to improve :he current system of voter registration.
The following steps could improve the current system:
1. Election day registration and voting should be permitted, but not
mandates'., to take place in adjacent rooms.
2. Certain penalties for election day infractions are so severe that they
constitute a barrier to effective enforcement of the law. The League
recommends that the laws be reviewed and modified where necessary so
that the laws can he effectively enforced.
3. Any state mandated registration programs should he accompanied by
sufficient state funds to pay local costs on a continuing basis.
4. A person other than an election official vouching for others should be
limited to fi,ye other persons other than immediate family.
5. The League encourages the promotion of pre-electicn day registration
through the media .1nd all other available means.
6. The League supports legislation allowing the removal of a registration
card after the city twice receives official postal notification that
the notice of registration is undeliverable at the individuals last
known address.
GSGL-21. ABSENTEE VOTING (C)
The League recommends that the Legislature and the Secretary of State study
u.. .?.hand
ire issue of Absentee voting encourages tem t ho take the necessary
steps to simplify the process.
Current law for absentee voting is complicated. The counting of the
absentee ballots have caused unnecessary dzlays in reporting ballot returns and
conflicts have resulted between state and federal government regarding
procedures in delivery of absentee ballots.
The League supports an earlier date for the filings of municipal offices in
order to have additional time for preparation of ballots and delivering of
absentee ballots.
December 17, 1984
TO: LMC Member Cities
FROM: Joel Jamnik, legislative Counsel and Stan Peskar, General Counsel
RE: Personnel and Public Safety Committee Proposed Policies
The attached policies have been adopted by the Legislative Committee and are
prioritized below. These policies as adopted by the will be brought to the
general memaership at the Legislative Conference on January 29, 1985.
Number
Policy Title
Priority
PPS-1
PERA Benefits, Financing, and Admiristration
A
PPS-2
Residency Requirements
A
PPS-3
Volunteer Ambulance Retirement
B
PPS-4
Retiree Health Benefits by Cities
B
PPS-5
Veterans Preference and Military Leaves
B
PPS-6
Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act
B
PPS-7
Law Enforcement Personnel
B
PPS-8
Fire Personnel Standards
B
PPS-9
Modifications to the State Fire Code
B
PPS-10
Modifications to the State Building Code
B
PPS-11
Emergency Medical Services
B
PPS-12
Workers Compensation
B
PPS-13
Relief Association Member Lobbying
B
PPS-14
Disability Retirement
B
PPS-15
Comparable Worth
C
PPS-16
Unemployment Compensation
C
PPS-17
One Class of Beer
C
i'FI(S(t\Ni{I. AND 1 UMAC :)AI-1;fY WM:1ITTH.. PROPOSI:1) POLICIES
PI'S-I. PERA BENEFITS, FINANCINC, AND ADMINISTRATION (A)
The following principles should govern anv changes the legislature makes in
PERA and the other statevide pension plans.
1. The l.ea�ue of Minnesot:� Ci ties oppose~ modification of tie "high five"
formula.
The adoption in 1973 of the "high five year" benefit formula for PERA has
provided very adequate pension benefits for career municipal employees. Further
shortening of the averaging period would create windfalls for some PERA members
and multiply opportunities for manipulation of service and salaries to maximize
pension benefits without proportional contributions to the fund.
2. Any increases in PERA benefits should be granted only to the extent
that proposed contributions and current reserve:. are sufficient to fully fund
the increases in the opinion of cne or more recognized pension actuaries who are
independent of the PERA ora n ization. Any benefit increase or contribution
reductions permitted by excess reserves or excessive current contributions or
combinations of the two should be of such amounts as to benefit the employer and
employe- equally as a percentage of overall employee salary.
3. In order to avoid recurring problems similar to those experienced by
the federal government in its pension programs, the I`".0 opposes payment of
health care costs for retirees from the PERA fund.
Among all the propubals for benefit increases, the one th.,t most threatens
the financial soundness of PERA and other Minnesota public pension funds, is the
proposal to provide health insurance to retirees paid from the pension fund.
Full payment would commit the taxpayers to an open ended promise to pay a cost
that is escalating at the rate of i52 to 262 per year even in low inflation
years. Partial payment would provide a foot -in -the -door for partial payment.
Either would hamper efforts to control health cr.te costs by making the recipient
responsible for a significant portion of charges to encourage thrifty use.
4. if anv increase in benefits is enacted for PERA retirees, the resultint,
costs shou:d not be paid from the PEKA fund, but rather should be financed by a
direct appropriation from the state general fund.
5. The LMC supports the continuation of the Minnesota POST Retirement
investment_fund_as a meanb of providing post -retirement increases in the pension
benefits of retirees under the state-wide pension funds.
6. Since integration of pension fund administration mechanisms may lead to
combining the funds. the LMC opposes any move to combine administration of the
three state -wide -pension programs.
7. The Legislature should amend the present provision on disbursement of
the two percent tax on aut-mobile casualty insurance to allow expenditure., tti
the recipient political subdivision of any excess over the employer's share of
police retirement costs for any police department purpose instead of requiring
Cayment to the PERA police and fare fund.` Since the PERA police and fire fund
ITS - I. PEPA RF.NEFITS, FINAKCINC, AND ADMIhi5TRA11W. (A) (cort'd)
has now cssentis1ly achIevetl 1uI I it, n(liny, c 11 I_oyer' and a-mhIovec!"
contributions should he reduced to an amount ::tiff ic•lent to_pay normal cost�4_
The PERA police and fire fund is now essentially fully funded.
Furthermore. the employer (taxpayers) through payment of more than 50 peicent of
contributions to this fund is creating a surplus not needed for pension
purposes.
8. The LMC requests the Legislature to defer state taxation of employer
PERA contributions until benefits are received end to exclude the PERA amount
from the employees gross income.
Recently, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that employee contributions to
PERA and similar public pension system, are not subject to federal income tar
contribution during the year in which they ate contributed to the system, but
rather are taxable in the year in which the employee actually receives the
benefit. This ruling is consistent with the manner in which municipal employer
contributions are taxed. Since the employee does; not have use of the
contribution in the year it is made and the Federal government has deferred
taxation until the benefits are received.
9. The selection process for the PERA Board should be revised to prevent
domination ty a tangle well financed individual or organization. The revision
process should include appointment of additional Board members by employers to
reflecc tbP employers heavy contribution to financing. Selection of a successor
to the Executive Director should occur only after an open selection process to
choose the best qualitied individual is compi:ted. Further, the statutes should
specifically provide criteria and qualifications for the Executive Director.
10. Local police and fire associations should be merged into the PERA
police and fire funds only if: 1) savings will accrue to the city, in the
opinion of the state actuary as well as in the opinion of the affected
municipality and 2) all actual funding liabilities as calculated by a state
actuary which are transferred to or assumed 1.c PERA are immediately reimbursed
to PERA by the transferring city.
PPS-2. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS (A)
The League supports the repeal of any restrictions on cities' authority to
impose residency requirements for city pe.sonnel.
PPS-3. VOLUNTEER AMBULANCE RETIRt-TENT (B)
M.S. 356.24 should be amendeJ to pe mit cities to contribute to defined
contribution or deferred compensation plans for city volunteers and a wluyeeu so
long as no public or non-profit administrative apparatus separate from the
cities themselven are created. The authority should permit vesting periods not
to exceed five years and special levies be available to finance ambulance
retirement programs.
-14-
PPS-3. VOLUNTEER AMli!'IANCF. RF.TIREMEN1 (B) (cont'd)
Proposals to integrate ambulance and rescue volunteers not part of local
volunteer fire departments into the program for retirement for volunteer
firefighters have met rejection From organizations of volunteer firefighters.
Creation of another system of local relief Is not in the best interest of the
state, its political subdivisions, or its taxpayers, especially in view if
recent federal tax legislation which nr•w provides an efficient, Pimple, at,d
inexpensive means of providing retirement benefits to ambulance and other
volunteers.
However, cities need the power to encourage long-term employment A
vc,1. teFrq 1-} iimple retirement mechanisms which are not subject to deficit
financing.
PPS-4. RF.TIFEE HEALTH hFSFFiT!- KY rl)TIF.S (it)
Before any governmental unit makes; any new commitment. to pay all or any
part of such premiums or charges it sh.nil ascertain the entire costs. Any
governmental entity paying for retirees benefits shall budget for the year in
which the commitment is to be incurred, sufficient funds; to cover al: projected
(-arrent and future costs which, will accrue during that year, ae determined by a
licensed certified public accountant or recognized acruary. Any governmental
unit paying any part of the coFt of retiree benefits authorized by this
subdivision, other than including retired employees in a single group with
active employees, shall establish a separate dedicated fund from which the cost
of these benefits shall be payable and shall be authorized to levy and collect a
tax, if necessary, in the next annual tax levy for the purpose of providing the
necessary funds for the panent of such projected costs.
In order to prevent t'-- creation of large unfunded deficits for promised
health care for retired pu.)lic employees, in the same way that unfunded
actuarial deficits were created by premised pension benefits prior to statutory
requirements for funding, the league of Minnesota Cities urges the legislature
to impose the furegoing restrictions.
PPS-5. VETERANS PRFFERENCE AND `tILITAhY LEAVES (B)
1. The ,.eague recommends that the legislature amend the vetcL.tj t reference
act to provide that a veteran mus select one and one one hearing procedure
rather than be able to request both a veterans preference hearing and A
grievance procedure under A collective bargaining a1reement_
Current statutes entitle a veteran to at least two different hearing
procedures to challenge any disciplinary action. This is not only grossly
inefficient but may also he unworkable since the standards for court revitw of
the declsionr of veterans preference boards and grievance arbitrators vAry
significantly. the Minnesota Supreme Court in a recent decision also has
indicated to the leRialAture thet these Lt.,tutes need to be amended.
-15-
'PS-5. VFTERANS ITEYEKFNCE AND A111ATARY LEAVES 09 (cant'd)
The law should provide for a selection of a single hearing; procedure and
eliminatt any requirement for salary payment pending the hearing when the
veteran does not request :i hearing within ten days or when an impartial herring
bodv determines that the dismissal was for just cause.
Z. The League recommends that the :statutes be amended to provide that when
an employee is temporaril% absent because of short-term military service that
the employer pay only the difterence between military pay and the public pay,
rather than ch: full combined salaries.
This pay differential should apply for a period of 30 calendar days. When
an employee is ordered to report for duty for a period longer than 30 calendar
days per year, no addir.ional seniority status, efficiency rating, vacation, sick
leave, or other benefits shall accrue during the period of active duty. Unless
there exists, at the time of an order to report for duty, a war or declared
emergency, the employee shall not be entitled to a leave of absence without pay
and the employee's public employment shall he considered terminated.
PPS-b. MINNESOTA PUBLIC FMPLOYMENT LABOR RFLATIONS ACT (B)
1. The League recommends that the existing classification of essential
employees be eliminated and all employees organized under Pt.LRA given the right
to strike.
The histor:: of bargaining in the. public sector had indicated that if
properly prepared for, even strikes by "essential employees" do not unduly
threaten public health and safety. In contrast, the prohibition of the right to
strike has forced undue reliance on arbitration, which usually hds resulted in
large compensation awards to essential employees. For these reasons the League
recommends that legislation he enacted that gives public employers the uption of
either requesting atbitrati+ni within a specific time or allowing essential
employees to legally strike.
2. The league recommends that the legislature reinstate. the previous
definition of employee-s covered by PF.IRA to persons employed for more than 100
days.
The 198J legislature reduced th,_ period of time part-time employees must he
employed before they are considered employee:: covered by PELRA. This has
resulted in higher wages for some part-time employees but, more significantly,
has resulted in cities hiring, fewer part-time employees. Additionally, many
employees who view their work as temporary or tr. .sitory in nature, have been
asked to pay their fair share of union dues, even though they receive uo benefit
from union memberKhip. Experience with the law over the last two years has
indicated µentral dissatisfaction with the law by every affected party except
unicni- representing primarily full-time employees.
3. 16P League oppot es any changes in PEI RA which would permit public
em lnvees to refuar to cross the picket liner: of other city employees, or would
chsnte the definition of suprrvis:or_y or confidential_em to ees.
PPS-6. MINNESOTA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE. LABOR RELATIONS ACT (B) (cont'd)
Supervisors cf public employees should have their management role
^.knuwledged and have their status limited to meet and confer. In no event
should superviso-ry or :-«nfidential employees he represented by an employee
organization whi%:A re-,esents the employees they supervise. Further limitation
of the definition of supervisory personnel would mean that in all but city
manager cities, no employees could be considered to be supervisory employees for
purposes of PELB.A.
4. The League recommends that legislation be passed requiring employees
covered under a collective bargaining agreement to choose a single method by
which to review disciplinary action.
Employees presently have a variety of grievance procedures available to
them, including civil service systems, veterans' preference, and procedures
agreed to under collective bargaining. :t makes little sensr for an employee to
have two bites of the apple in challenging disciplinary action, particularly
when the standards for review of the different grievance hearings are as varied
a§ they are. The result under the current statutory system literally precludes
effective discipline of public employees. Requests for reform have been made
from many sources, most recently by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
5. The League recommends that the Public Employment Relations Board be
abolished and its statutorily prescribed duties be delegated to the Bureau of
Mediation Services.
The reduced case load of the PERB and its recent actions in arbitrarily
changing the method of selecting qualified arbitrators have indicated that there
is no longer a need for the PERB.
PPS-7. LAW ENFORCEMENT PERFONNEL (B)
The League opposes any increase in state standards for the recruitment,_
training, and conduct of law enforcement personnel.
The current uniform state licensing system establishes adequate minimum
standards for law enforcement personnel. The League supports the continued
flexibility provided in the system to employ a class of peace officers who meet
specified requirements which are less than those for full-time officers and
allows upgrading of part-time officers to fully licensed status, as well as
allowing the POST Board to grant variances for political subdivision having
particular difficulties in complying with licensing standards to permit phased
compliance. Cities should retain responsibilit) for personnel matters and the
state should not unnecessarily complicate local personnel practices which have
worked well in the past.
PPj-8. FIRE PERSONNF:1. STANDARDS (It)
The League opposes any additional state established mandatory or suggested
physical, physiological, educational, or compensation standards for retirement
or continual employment of firefighters.
Fire suppression has traditionally been a uniquely local function in
Minnesota. Not only ane firefighting problems vastly different from one
community to another, but well over ninety percent of Minnesota communities rely
primarily on volunteer firefighters for fire suppression services. The League
believer that local governing bodies are best equipped to determine the nature
of local fire risks, the level of local fire prevention efforts, and the
practical availability of firefighting personnel. Efforts by the state to
improve firefighting capabilities should be �.ndertaken through increased
financial assistance to provide improved prcgrams or by direct employment of
specialized personnel at the state level with such personnel made available to
assist local units of government.
PPS-9. MODIFICATIONS TO THE STATE FIRE COVE (B)
The League supports legislation w:sich would clarify that i• is the
respo;•sibility of the state to inspect facilities open to the public such as
schools, hote'.s, lodging houses, hospitals, nursing homes, dry cleaners, and
motion picture theaters, whether or not it contracts with local units of
government to perform the actual inspection.
The League also supports legislation allowing cities which Flo not have the
building code to require the installment of masonry fire walls between buildings
in the downtcwn business district or other high ri,�k areas as an alternative to
adopting the more stringent fire code in the state building code. All foam
insulation sold in Minnesota should be required to clearly state on its
packaging that state law requires the foam to be covered by fire resistant
material.
PPS-10. MODIFICATIONS TO THE STATE BUILDING CODE (H)
Specific amendments should be made to the state building code to encourage
cities to adopt it, including giving cities the authority to bet the square
footage limit for buildings which must have sprinkler systems installed.
The League supports the current ability of non -metropolitan s.ities,
counties, and towns to opt -out of the inspection and enforcement
responsibilities mandated by the State Building Code. All architects and
engineers who design any structure should continue to be required to certify
that the structure as designed complies with the state building code,
particularly the building access for the handicapped provisions. The legislature
should authorize the Commissioner of Administration to certify inspectors t•-)r
the building access provisions who are not fully certified as building code
inspectors. State fee inspectors should continue to be available from the state
for inspection in areas outside of communities with local enforcement.
PPS- 11. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (R)
The league supports the current statutory minimum requirements for
ambulance vehicles, equipment, and attendants' training but opposes any
additional requirements unless the state provides adequate funding or funding
sources.
Cities as a group are the single largest provider of ambulance services in
the state and form a vital part of the network of emergency services. To
maintain and improve the emergency services network for all residents of the
state the legislature must provide funding for training and equipping emergency
medical personnel. State grants and aids should be available to enable all
cities to have access to adequate emergency medical service. Additionally, with
the increasing interest in pars-,edic services, the legislature should assist in
providing easily accessible training on a statewide basis at minimum cost in
order to meet appropriate qualifications.
PPS-12. WORKERS' COMPENSATION (B)
The League requeits the legislature to eliminate the presumption that heart
and lung ailments of police and fire personnel arise from their employment.
Existing workers' compensation statutes create a presumption that heart
lung ailments of police tend fire personnel arise from employment. Improved
equipment and methods of fire fighting and law enforcement and increased
statistical data as to personal risk factors affirm that presumption no longer
reflects reality or serves a public purpose.
PPS-13. RELIEF ASSOCIkTION MEMBER LOBBYING (B)
The League of Minnesota Cities st+pports legislation which would permit
relief association paid lobbying by one regularly assigned member to be released
for the purpose of lobbying. Those lobbying costs should be financed entirely
from the general fund of each association.
Recent legislation grants local relief associations unlimited powers to
send police and fire officers who are members of local relief associations to
lobby and otherwise represent the interest of the association at city expense
and at times determined by the association. These powers interfere with
traditional functions of governing bodies and department heads and managers to
schedule duty, determine manning levels, and set budgets.
PPS-14. DISABILITY RETIREMENT (B)
1. Pre-existing conditions. Public retirement funds should not be char
the costs resulting from disabling conditions that a pre -employment history
physical demonstrates existed on or prior to the date of public employment.
or
-19-
PPS-14. DISABILITY RETIREM1 NT (it) (cont'd
2. Transfers. Needs to balance empluI ent roles for minorities and women
in unfilled positions should not override programs to transfer present employees
from jobs and departments for which they are presently disabled to jobs and
departments for which they still qualify.
3. Uniformity. Statutes governing local public safety pension plans
should be amended to provide to the cities with such plans a substantial voice
on the governing board of the plans. Further, a uniform statutory procedure and
method of determining percentages of disability payments should he provided to
local public safety fund members with physical or mental conditions which
Permanently disqualify them from public safety employment but which do not
disable them from all other gainful employment.
4. 100% Disability Retirement. Public pension plans in which city
employees participate should be required to use a uniform definition of
disability which limits full or 100 percent to those whose medical conditions
disable them from engaging in any substantial gainful activity over a
substantial period. U nreasonablf- service limits tests should not be imposed and
no employee should be required to have more than five years of service under the
applicable plan in order to qualify for disability retirement. Workers'
compensation entitlements should be deducted from any disability pensions.
Disability benefits from all other sources other than privately financed
disability insurance, as well as a portion of employment earnings, should be an
offset against ciry disability pension payments to the extent that these
combined payments approach after-tax salary for the former position.
Rising, costs of disability retirements pose a threat to the financial
soundness of most Minnesota public pension plans. The foregoing changes are
needed to minimize the financial impact of legitimate disabilities.
Furthermore, abuses of disabilitv retirement provisions in public pension plans
have, in the past, caused serious waste of human resources and scarce public
funds. In view of the current laws forbidding discrimination against
handicapped persons who are not disabled from gainful employment, the League
recommends legislation to implement the above listed policy.
PPS-15. COMPARABLE WORTH (C)
Because we will not 'Know the full impact of the 1984 pay equity legislation
until the Department of Fmployee Relations reports to the legislature in Janua
1986, the League recommends that no legislative action be taken on the law
during the 1985 legislative session.
PPS-16. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION (C)
The Lea ue r, .mends that the legislature amend the unemployment
compensation law_ er,Rthen the requalification period, to lim`.t eligibility
for temporary ent under one year in duration, and to relieve part-time
employers who c, nue employment of an individual from any responsibility to
contribute to compensation due to termination from other employment.
PPS-16. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION (C) (cunt'd)
addition, the League believes that individuals who knowingly accept temporary
employment of specific limited durations not exceeding one year and whose
employment is thus ended, should be deemed to have voluntarily ended their
employment and thus should be disqualified for certain benefits. The employers'
involved should not be saddled with unemployment compensation costs for
Individuals who accept and perhaps even plan for the termination of such
employment. Also, students temporarily employed as interns should be ineligible
for unemployment compensation since the position is primarily an educational
experience which by its very nature is not expected to be of indefinite
duration. Finally, the current law unfairly treats cities employing part-time
police, fire or park personnel which are required to contribute to unemployment
compensation due to termination from other employment even though the part-time
employment is continued.
PPS-17. ONE CLASS OF BEER (C)
The League opposes the establishment of one class of beer and the off -sale
of wine in other than liquor stores.
The establishment of one class of beer in Minnesota would cause substantial
problems in controlling the sale of beer in filling stations, grocery stores,
drug stores, and elsewhere where 3.2 beer is presently sold. Also, 3.2 on -sale
establishments would he selling strong beer in competition with on -sale liquor
establishments and municipal liquor stores.
December 17, 1984
TO: LMC Member Cities
FROM: Joel Jamnik, Legislative Counsel
RE: Land Use, Energy, Environment. and Transportation Proposed Policies
The attached
policies have been adopted by the Legislative Committee and are
prioritized
below. These policies as adopted by the Legislative
Committee will
be brought to
the general membership at the Legislative Conference on January
29, 1985.
Number
Policy Title
Priority
LUEET-1
Wastewater Treatment Projects
A
LUEET-2
Ground and Surface Water Management
A
LUEET-3
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
B
LUEET-4
Transportation
B
LUEET-S
Annexation
B
LUEET-6
Eminent Domain Law
B
LUEET-7
Adverse Possession
B
LUEE--8
Planning and Zoning Law Changes
B
LUEET-9
Energy Conservation and Production
C
LAND USE, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED POLICIES
LUEET-1. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS (A)
The League supports increased state and federal assistance in financing
wastewater treatment facilities.
Clean water is vitally important to the citizens of this country and
particularly to residents and visitors of Minnesota. Minnesota's cities remain
committed to improving water quality. Unfortunately, the costs involved in
providing cleaner water are staggering. Because of the incredible cost, it must
be recognized that it is economically impractical to immediately eliminate
pollution. Therefore, all levels of government must take a reasonably balanced
approach to solving the pollution problem.
The ability of cities to comply with any clean water program must be
recognized as contingent upon the availability of adequate funds for building
treatment facilities. Since 1978, federal funding for the wastewater treatment
construction grant program has been cut in :calf. Additionally, the federal
share of construction grants will drop from 75 to 55 percent beginning in fiscal
year 1985. The b-tdget constraints facing the federal government are undeniable,
but those same constraints exist at the state and local level as well. It is
unfair to those city residents who in the past have contributed their federal
tax dollars to projects in other locations to be faced with a tripling of the
local share for a project in their city. For this reason, if the federal
government does not return the federal share for rehabilitation, repair,
upgrading, and new construction of treatment facilities to 75 percent, the state
should be the level of government to bear the increased burden. The League
commends the legislature fot the enactment in 1984 of a separate state grants
program which increases overall state financing assistance. Increased revenues
are needed for this program and the legislature should increase the percentage
of financing which is available for particular projects.
Several communities still have a significant amount of combined waste and
storm waiter sewers which create overflows of untreated waste water during heavy
rains and storm water runoff periods. The Federal and state governments are
pressing the issue of meeting water quality standards which cannot be
accomplished until separation is completed. An accelerated separation program
cannot be funded only throug` Kcal taxes. If the state pursues an accelerated
separation program, state fit. ._ial assistance :should be provided to cover the
additional cost: due to the acceleration of the separation program but not at
Lite expense of the overall construction grants program.
LUEET-2. GROUND AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (A)
The league supports legislation establishing a framework and providing
incentiveF for local govei,—ents to adopt programs or plans aimed at conserving
Minnesota's ground and surface waters. In order to safeguard the public health
and the environmen, it is necessary to plan and manage our water resources
wisely. Many watershed districts, counties, cities, and towns have done a good
job of dealing with surface and ground water management issues and have the
authority and ability to continue to do so in a cost effective manner. These
existing mechanisms should continue to be used to the greatest extent possible
to address surface and ground water management problems instead of establishing
a npw system or creating new organiTations.
LUEET-2. GROUND AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT (A) (cent'u)
Local units of government should retain the basic responsibility for
surface water mani.gemenL as they are the level of fovernment closest to the
problem. 1982 legislation required local governments in the metropolitan area to
adopt surface water :un-off controls and regulations. Cities have taken the
lead in complying with this law, and similar steps need to be taken in the
non -metropolitan area of the state.
Non metropolitan counties should be required to adopt comprehensive water
quality and land use plans identifying water problems based upon the sound
hydrologic management of water, effective environmental protection, and
efficient management. The legislation should require the county to seek input
from affected cities and to allow counties to contract with cities for planning
services.
State funds should be made available to cities that are required to make
substantial amendments to local plans and controls, or that are employed to
assist the county in preparation of the comprehensive water plan. Special
levies should be available to fund water management projects.
The League supports the concept of jurisdictional reassignment of roads
based on functional classification provided that a corresponding source or
mechanism of funding made available for these roads.
LUEF.T-3. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (B)
The League supports state programs designed to minimize or eliminate the
need to landfill solid and hazardous waste.
The Problem of regulating, controlling, and disposing of solid and
hazardous waste will be one of the major environmental issues of the next
decade, both nationally and locally. Major state legislation addressing this
issue has been enacted annually since 1980. These acts re3ponded to the
concerns and issues raised by the League and local government and we commend the
legislature for its actions.
The existing waste manafement and control system for the hindling and
disposal of hazardous materials centralizes responsibility at the state level
but requires the cooperation and support of all levels of p-.i_tnmellL. The
system established for solid waste is more diffuse, relying on cities to
control and regulate collection, counties to regulate or operate existing
landfills, and the state to coordinate responsibilities and plan for future
disposal needs. Both systems have been designed to foster and encourage
abatement, recycling and resource recovery for as much of the waste stream cs
possible and then to assure environmentally sound disposal for the remaining
waste. The system has not been entirely implemented as yet. The League does not
perceive a need for major changes to existing legislation at the present time,
but any future legislation that may be considered should enhance and --iot
diminish the emphasis on these concerns:
-25-
LUEET-3. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (B) (cont'd)
1. Effective Planning. To the greatest extent possibie, all levels and
units of government and the private sector should be involved in all phases of
planning and managing the solid and hazardous waste streams to assure a cost
efficient and environmentally sound solid waste and hazardous waste disposal
system.
2. Alternatives to Landfills. The League strongly endorses abatement,
recycling and resource recovery activities and programs to reduce the need for
the land disposal of waste. The goal shouid be to eliminate the land disposal
of unprocessed solid waste, and to totally avoid the land disposal of hazardous
waste. The League would support the prohii,ition of disposal of unprocessed solid
waste in landfills provided that cost efficient alternatives are developed and
funding is provided to cities to implement their responsibilities in a revised
solid waste management system. A tax on solid waste deposited in landfills
would be supported by the League if the funds derived from the tax would be used
to establish a fund to pay for post closure costs of landfills and to finance
recycling and abatement programs in the particular county where the tax is
derived.
In order to make local waste programs viable, a process for regulating the
flow of Eolid waste must be available to provide a sufficient source of waste
for any recovery program or facility. The League also supports the concept
that producers of solid waste should pay the true and full costs of solid waste
disposal and commends the legislature for its forward looking initiatives during
the 1984 session in which a three tiered system of fees on land disposed solid
waste was established with the intent of establishing a fee st-ucture based on
the type of waste disposed of in landfills.
3. Compensation and incentives for communities. Waste disposal facilities
have many undesirable impacts on "host" communities and compensation for all
direct and indirect costs incurred by the community should be provided. Direct
costs include such things as fire protection, water and sewer services, buffer
zone design and amenities, litter clean-up, while indirect costs include such
items as road maintenance, monitoring costs, end use planning and city
administrative costs associated with the facility. The current authority for
landfill host communities to impose a fee on waste deposited in the land.ill
should not be reduced.
4. Funding for Environmental, Personal and Property Damages. Recent
studies lave indicated that most, if not all, landfills eventually cause ground
water contamination problems. It is largely undetermined at this point what the
eventual impacts will be and in contemplation of this the League supports a
surtax on solid waste going into landfills which will go into a fund dedicated
to compensate persons or communities injured or damaged by adverse environmental
incidents caused by landfill contamination, including real or personal property
damage, personal injuries, clean-up activities, and alternative water supplies.
S. Clean-up of hazardous substance locations. The clean-up and
decontamination of existing hazardous waste sites should be expedited to prevent
further damage to public health, water supplies, and environment. If a
responsible party can be identified, that party should be liable for clean-up
costs, costs for remedial action, and personal injury damages as defined in law.
-26-
LUEET-3. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (B) (cont'd)
If a responsible party cannot be identified, or responsibility is contested
by the responsible party, then the clean-up should be financed by the state
superfund and the legislature should consider the creation of a victims
compensation fund to pay for the personal injury damages suffered by
individuals.
LUEET-4. TRANSPORTATION (B)
The League supports the concept of jurisdictional reassignment of roads
based on function classification only if there is a corresponding source or
mechanism of funding these roads.
An efficient transportation system is a vital element in planning for the
fiscal, economic and social development at state, regional, and local levels.
Since the agricultural and recreational economy of the state and its cities are
dependent upon highway transportation, it is necessary to determine the
long-range highway needs to assure the vitality of the state's economy.
Furthermore, environmental concerns and the need to conserve energy require that
alternate modes of transportation be utilized in meeting the diverse needs which
exist invarious communities and regions of the state. In order to provide a
more adequate state governmental structure and funding mechanism for
transportation system planning and development, the League recommends that the
following changes be made:
1. Turnbacks. The State Highway Study Commission has been studying the
possibility of reclassifying many roadways in the state as to appropriate use
classifications and jurisdiction. The increased cost for cities to assume
responsibility for general maintenance and life cycle treatment far exceeds the
current financial capacities of cities. For this reason, no wholesale program
of highway turnbacks should be instituted at this time. Instead, existing
mechanisms for the orderly turnback of roads should be fine tuned, including
increasing the level of funding in the municipal turnback account, and
prohibiting unilateral revocations or turnbacks by roan authorities unless a
hearing is held and the road is brought up to normal standards acceptable to the
receiving jurisdiction before the revocation is effective.
Other change needed to facilitate turnbacks include:
a) State aid rules should be changed to allow counties to upgrade county
state aid highways using c.s.a.h. funds prior to turnback with city concurrence
and without penalty as currently imposed by the rules;
b) The League supports use of a portion of the highway motor vehicle
excise tax to provide an adequate source for turnback funds, and;
c) allowing cities to determine if a turnback road will be designated as
a state aid road or local street and if the city chooses to designate the road
as a state -aid road this designation should not affect the standard designation
procesb so that developing cities will be able to co^•inue to designate a
percentbge of new road growth as part of the state aid system.
-27-
LUEET-4. TRANSPORTATION (B) (cont'd)
2. An adequate level of highway user funds should be maintained so that
highway maintenance and reconstruction may be continued, and adequate funds be
available for the state -aid street program. The legislature has recently taken
appropriate steps in this direction by increasing license fees and the gasoline
tax to maintain this fund. Efforts should be made to eliminate any inequities in
the motor vehicle license fee schedules and other vehicle taxes. The League
does not support establishing a system of direct appropriations to cities under
5,000.
3. The special state bending program should be continued to provide funds
for counties, towns and municipalities for the replacement or repair of bridges.
4. Funding for at least the existing level of operation for :Mass transit
should be maintained by the state. Available funds should be used at the city's
option for capital or operating expenses.
5. The legislature should continue the Minnesota Department of
Transportation as the rideshare program coordinating agency and to provide
adequate funding for its continuation.
6. The League supports the continued dedication of the sales tax on motor
vehicle sales for transportation purposes, and advocates the prompt transfer of
the moth vehicle excise tax into the highway user an transit assistance fund.
7. The possibility and feasibility of utilizing existing railroad trackage
as par: of a fixed guide way and/or light rail mass transit system should be
addressed. If existing railroad trackage/right-of-ways are petitioned for
abandonment, these or portions thereof st•.auld be preserved by appropriate
government agencies through alternate public use until rail systems once again
become economically feasible or needed because of energy considerations.
8. Tht, legislature should restore the bikeway grants program in order to
promote safety in a growing recreational activity.
LUEET-5. ANNEXATION (B)
The league supports legislation making it easier for cities to annex urban
or urbanizing land which is in a two mile fringe area around the city.
Public policies which encourage substantial development in non -urban areas
and which extend public services beyond existing jurisdictions and service areas
are wasteful and counter -productive. Cities offer a variety of lifestyles that
conserve energy, and they are already centers of substantial public and private
investment. Additionally, prime agricultural land is a major natural and
economic resource and any state ]and use strategy must include as a major
objective the preservation of prime agricultural land. The state should
establish a policy encouraging the preservation of prime agricultural land which
discourages the development of such land outside designated growth areas to be
LUEET-5. ANNEXATION (B) (cont'd)
served by a city and encourages local governments to adopt agricultural
preservation policies and ordinances.
Even It these steps are taken, a great deal of development w+ll still occur
in the fringe areas surrounding cities. The state statutes regulating
annexation must be changed to make it easier for cities to annex this developed
or developing land, in order to insure the integrity of our governmental
systems.
It is unfair to city residents to have individuals avoid paying their fair
share for municipal services by living in the fringe area around a city. The
League recommends amending the annexation and planning laws to provide for urban
expansion districts which would be designated as exclusive urban growth zones.
No urban development woula be allowed outside these areas or outside existing
cities. Upon development or the extension or urban services to these areas,
annexation would occur upon passage of an ordinance of the city council. This
method would provide a new, simple, and straight -forward procedure for cities to
plan and grow by annexation consistent with sound land use management goals and
maintain the integrity of our governmental system which provides that urban
areas should be governed by the city form of government and rural areas should
be governed by the township for.n of government.
LUEET-6. EMINENT DOMAIN LAND (B)
The League recommends that the legislature undertake a thorough study of
the em.'.nent domain statutes.
The League believes the entire eminent domain process should be critically
reviewed and streamlined. This examination should include a reevaluation of the
advisability of an alternative system of review, for example a professional
referee, a hePring examiner, etc., using a professional referee in lieu of three
commissioners to establish the value of the land; th^ public purposes for which
the law may be used, including its use to encourage economic development; and
the legality and feasibility of collecting property taxes on property for
several years in instances where the award is substantially in excess of the
market value of the property for tax purposes.
LUEET-7. ADVERSE POSSESSION (B)
The League supports legislation making it clear that no adverse possession
can be had against the state and its political subdivisions.
-29-
LUEET-R . PLANK 1 NG AND � LAW CHANGES 00
)
The League supports legislation conforming the statutory procedures for
modifying a city's comprehensive land use plan with the statutory procedures for
modifying a city's zoning ordinance.
Existing state law requires a simple majority vote of a city council to
adopt or amend a comprehensive land use plan, but requires a supermajority (2/3)
vote to amend a zoning ordinance. The differing voting requirements cause a
problem because the law also requires the plan and implementing ordinances to be
consistent with each other. Situations have arisen where a majority of the
council votes to amend the city's comprehensive plan but there is not enough
support to effectuate a zoning change. In order to facilitate the process and
avoid possible legal challenges, the League proposes to air.end the law to require
a supermajority vote to amend a city's comprehensive plan.
The preceding problem is one of many problem areas in our planning and
zoning laws. Recent piecemeal amendments have compounded, not helped, the
problem. Therefore, the League recommends that the Legislature create a task
force to reform the state planning and zoning laws. The task force should be
composed of representatives from cities and other local units of government.
LUEET-9. ENERGY CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION (C)
The League supports legislation providing incentives for energy
conservation and production in both the public and private sectors.
Overall energy conservation strategies involving the public, private,
commercial, and industrial sectors are being developed by cities based on the
rationale that conservation efforts achieve the greatest energy savings at the
lowest cost. The League believes that a city's individual energy conservation
strategy can be accomplished if the legislature permits or establishes some of
the following measures:
1. Retrofit of Local Government Buildings. Local governments and school
districts operate nearly 8,000 buildings in Minnesota. Possible energy savings
in this sector range from 16-67 percent of current energy consumption by
implementing uperation maintenance changes and capital improvements programs.
The League recommends support of the use of special levies to local governments
for implementation of energy conservation measures, including building energy
audits. This special levy could be designed to complement 1983 legislation
authorizing 10-year installment payment contracts for capital equipment or
services intended to improve the energy efficiency of municipally owned
buildings. It would also supplement the existing special purpose capital
expenditure levy law available now only to school districts.
2. District Heating. To promote statewide applications of district heating
technology and to allow communities to make most efficient use of the State
District Heating Bond Program, the league recommends the following:
-30-
1.11EF:T-4. F:NhRCY COKSEKVA'i'Il►N AND 11RODUCTIuN (C) (c•ont'd)
a. The legislature should provide addiLionai funds or the ability Lo
special levy for conducting; district heating; feasibility studio:; at the
community level;
b. The legislature shnold strongly encourage consideration of district
heating potential in toe power plant siting process.
c. The legislature should continue to allow use of State District Heating
Bond Program for renovation of existing district heating systems.
d. Repavmcnt of state bond issues would follow repayrient of local
obligations.
3. Low and Moderate Income hnergy Assistance. Rising; energy costs will
continue to place a burden on the economic vitality of communities in Minnesota.
The League recommends:
a) continuation of the fuel assi!;lance program for low-income house holds,
with expanded services to train recipient,, ;n energy conservation practices and
with a requirement of recipient participation in uvatherization programs if the
recipient is the owner;
b) support for weatherization programs operated through cities, c•ountier
and CAP agencies, and;
c) continued support for tLe hHFA loan anr+ grant program for home
weatheriaation.
4. Conservation and Renewable Fnerg,• Financing. Declining federal support
for implementing conservation and renewab a resource projects will place a
significant burden on local government attempts to maintain vital services to
their residerts and promote community deve.opment. The League recommends that
cities he allowed to bond and to make a special levy for energy conservation and
renewable resource projects. The legislature should also continue to encourage
private sector conservation through tax credits and other incentives and should
explore the possibility of expanding incentives for earth sheltered and
underground development.
5. Local Reg;ulatory Acitbority. Local governments are in the best position
to assess local needs and regulate energy consumption within their communi.ties.
The League recommend-s giving any municipality the option to adopt and enforce :.-
energy code tha: may bt. more stringent than the state building code for purposes
of energy conservation.
-31-
December 17, 1964
TO: LMC Member Cities
FROM: Donald A. Slater, Executive Director
RE: Development Strategies Proposed Policies
The attrched policies which have been adopted by Legislative Committee and are
prioritized below. These policies as adopter; will be brought to the general
membership at the Legislative Conference on January 29, 1985.
Number Policy Title Priority
DS-1 Industrial Development Bonds A
DS-2 Housing B
DS-3 Municipal Service Districts B
DS-4 Tax Increment Financing B
DS-S Port Authority 6
DS-6 Community Development Principles C
DS-7 Tax -Exempt Status of Land Held by Cities for
Development C
DS-8 Small Cities Community Block Grant Program C
DEVI{LOPMENT STkATE(.11•., PROPOSED POIAC1F.S
DS-1. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS (A)
The League supports the continued use of industrial development bonds
through application of the existing IDB allocation system with revisions which
support the following principles:
A maximum of Minnesota IDB allocation being retained b
municipalities.
2) The maintenance of local discretion and flexibility in IDB decisions.
3) The minimization of state control of local IDB decisions.
IDBs allow cities to undertake a diverse range of activities to prevent
economic deterioration, to attract new businesses and jobs, to retain existing
businesses and jobs, and to maintain and strengthen the local tax base.
The League strongly recommends that the !DB allocation system maintain
separate allocations for entitlement and nrni-entitlement users. The League
emphasizes that the critical function of any allocation system is the efficient
and full utilization of Minnesota's IDB allocation.
DS-2. HOUSING (B)
The League of Minnesota Cities continues to encourage the use of tax-exempt
financing for housing and supports the Minnesota Municipal Housing Revenue Bond
Act, M.S. 462C, passed in 1979, as amended in 1982, 1983, and 1984.
The League sLyports amendments to Chapter 462C necessary to further assist
cities in using hosing revenue bond programs both as a redevelopment tool and
,:s a way to provide housing for low- and moderate -income households. The League
supports an allocation formula which would provide 50 percent of the annual
state ceiling to cit e•. The allocation to cities should be allocated 50
percent to a lottery, an: 30 percent should be allocated to cities of the first
class. Cities of the first class are excluded from the lottery unless they
forfeit to the lottery their direct allocation. The state should reserve $10
million of MHFA's allocation for programs for small cities, including pooling
programs.
MHFA program funds should be targeted to cities in a manner consistent with
local plans and programs. The MHFA should continue to improve its procedure
whereLy representatives of a diverse group of cities, chosen in consultation
with the League, can participate in decision making as to MHFA priorities in
targeting funds to cities.
Cities recognize that incentives for the construction and rehabilitation of
housing form a vital part of city redevelopment efforts and serve the housing
needs of its citizens, especially those of low- and moderate -incomes.
Because of the Federal Mortgage Subsidy Bond Tax Act of 1980, the ability
of cities to conduct housing programs has been severely limited. Federal law
placed an annual cap on the dollar volume of the single-family mortrare revenue
bonds that may be used in Minnesota.
DS-2. HOUSIN(: (B)
In 1981, 1182, 1 HA. :,nd 1994 the Le.-gir.lature enacted several allocation
plans which divide bundiiig atithority between cities in the state. Because of
increased needF and abilities of cities to conduct local housing bond programs.
the current allocation to cities; in inadequate.
In addition, the l.eageu recommends that the competitive system administered
by M►1FA be changed as follow:;:
1) The procedures and deadlines for receiving an allocation should he
better publicize(' to cities by publishing notice in the state register and other
means.
2) 100 percent of the loans should be reserved for the first six months
for families and individuals with incomes below 80 percent of the maximum family
income.
3) Only projects which will receive municipal sewer and water services
should be eligible for financing;.
4) Cities which h:,ve not received an allocation in the past two years
(with the exception of Minneapolis, tit. Patel, and Duluth) or cities which have
joint programs should receive preference.
5) If all factors are equal, and there are more programs than ther, are
funds available, programs should bt: selected by lot.
6) The non -bond proceeds criteria should be eliminated because it
encourages inappropriate "bidding wars" among cities and because it tends :o
favor new construction projects over existing housing and rehab projects.
7) The state law regarding the review of housing plans by RI)Cs or
Metropolitan Council sho+jld be clarified to expedite the review process.
8) The League supports the continuation of state income tax exemption of
interest on trortgage revenue bonds.
9) MNFA should be required to reserve 100 percent of its bond program for
six months for applicants below the 80 percent of the program income limits, and
comply with other limits imposed ou local programs.
10) M11FA should be required to submit its multi -family bonds issue to the
city in which the development Is located for review and approval. The MHFA
project should be consistent with the city's multi -family bond policy and the
project slu,ild be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council or by the city's regional
development commission.
DS-3. MUNICIPAL. SERVICE DISTRICTS (B)
The league supports legislation which would allow cities to create
municipal service districts. Cities should be allcrwed to finance the types of
improvements listed in M.S. 429.021 (relating to the construction, replacement,
and maintenance of such things as streets, sidewalks, gutters, storm and
-35-
DS-3. MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICTS (R)
sanitary sewers, waterworks systems, street lights, and public malls, parking,
or courtyards). Both service charge; and ad valorem property tax should be
available to finance services or capital improvements in the district.
Recent court decisions concerning special assessments have made it more
difficult for cities to use special assessments to finance public services and
improvements. The Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted the State
Constitution to require not only that a special assessment project "specially
benefit" affected parcels of property, but also that the city be able to prove
that the market value of a property will increase in direct relation to the
amount of the special assessment applied to that property.
This interpretation has created particular problems for several important
city functions. First, it is more difficult assess all (or even part) of a
capital improvement project to repair or replace, as opposed to newly built
improvements. This result hinders cities from meeting the widely recognized
need for maintenance of the existing public infrastructure.
Second, cities' ability to finance annual operating and maintenance costs
of some services to property through the use of special service charges is
either unclear or nonexistent udder current law.
The only current financing alternative to special assessments or service
charges is the general property tax. But it may not be desirable to use the
general property tax to finance some capital or operating expenses. For
example, if a road is used almost exclusively by people living in one corner of
a city, it may be bad public policy to require the cost of replacing that road
to be borne by all the property in the city. This is especially true if the
property in the rest of the city has already been assessed for similar
improvements.
Or, if the central business district or mall of a city benefits from more
frequent snowplowing or street cleaning, better lighting, etc. it may not be
good policy to have all the city taxpayers share in those expenses.
DS-4. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (B)
The League recommends that the tax increment financing statute remain
unamended.
Tax increment financing has permitted many cities in various parts of the
state to define and carry out rehabilitation, redevelopment, housing, and
economic development projects on their own initiative. It represents the most
feasible and effective legal strategy which is currently available to cities to
preserve and improve their physical and economic environment.
DS-S. PORT AUTHORITIES (B)
The legislature should adopt enabling legislation allowing any city to
create a port authority.
A number of cities have benefitted from special acts of the legislature
allowing them individually to create port authorities. These cities have
benefitted from additional flexibility in the economic development field. These
opportunities should be available to all cities rather than requiring individual
acts of the legislature.
DS-6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES (C)
The League supports legislation which continues state assistance to cities
for community and economic development. The League encourages the legislature
to appropriate funds for direct assistance to business fcr economic development.
As a matter of principle, the state should not encourage the use of such direct
assistance for the sole purpose of moving businesses from one Minnesota city to
another. Technical assistance should be furnished by the appropriate state
a envies to aid cities in promoting local development activities.
Minnesota cities have traditionally been responsible for their own economic
growth. During the 60's and 70's, cities promoted development through the use
of industrial revenue bonds, tax increment financing, and housing (or mortgage
revenue) bonds. Substantial federal grant programs supplemented local resources.
The economic rcalities of the 1980's require even greater efforts by cities
in community and economic development. As federal assistance disappears, cities
are forceu to become more creative in the use and leveraging of available
resources.
In recent years, the state has assisted cities' development efforts through
legislation and agency -administered programs, inzlucing Minnesota Main Street,
Star Cities, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency loan programs, and small business
rehabilitation loan programs. State legislation must continue to provide
maximum flexibility for cities to carry out community development activities.
Additionally, the state must actively promote economic development through
direct assistance to businesses and more extensive technical assistance to
maximize cities' ability to leverage local, state, and federal resources.
Any proposed community and economic development legislation should respond
to the following concerns:
1) Protection of cities' ability to finance capital improvements.
2) Management of economic growth to maximize cities' existing capital
investment.
3) Revitalization of cities reversing the trend of dispersion of
population and economic activity.
4) Recognition and allowance for the great differences between cities
regarding their stages of growth and development, demographics, and
types of economic activity within and adjacent to their borders.
5) The legislature should enable the Small Business Finance Agency to
package projects which are approved by local city councils into larger
Industrial revenue bonds.
DS-7. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF LAND HELD BY CITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT (C)
The League supports granting unlimited tax-exempt status to property held
by cities and their political subdivisions for later resale to promote economic
development.
Up until recently, almost all property owned by political subdivisions was
granted tax-exempt status. In 1979, the legislature changed the law to provide
that,gfop3rttr held by a olltical ubbdivisi�� of the st�te for later ea le for
econ c ev lopment 4rroses woul� be cons eretd a pubb is purpose anb t�iere,.ore
-37-
DS-7. TA`'.-LXE..Mi'T S1Ali IS VV I -AN 1) NI1.0 Itl CIT11 i(IR 1)1:VF:1(C) (cont'(I)
tax-cxemlit for .: maximum period of three )ears:. In 198L., th,- legislature
revis.cd the st.itute, providing Lax-exer:pt status fua a period of eight year:, in
most situations ant+ grtinting an exemption for :an unlimited period of years if
the property is held for housing programs or is classified as "blighted ]and"
under :state law.
The. 1984 law provides, however, that if the property is acquired for
economic development purposes and building or other improvements are constructed
after acquisition of the property, and if more than one-half of the floor space
of the buildings or improvtneuts which is available for lease to or use by a
private irdividual, corporation, or other entity is leased to otherwise used by
a private individual, corporation, or ether entity the property will he
considered taxable.
The overall intent of the statute i:: 6e--igned to create an incentive for
political subdivisions to engal;e in economic development activities as well as
to promote marring the property back onto the tax rolls. Unfortunately, it dues
not fully recognize that the process of developing industrial and economic
growth, rehabilitating, cr building housing may extend over a long period of
time. The uncertainty ..aused by the vague provision on improvements and leasing
of one-half of the property discourages cities from being active in establishing
and maintaining local development corporations, from retaining as much control
as possible over their economic development and planning process, and from being
selective as to the type of development which may occur in the city.
Cities have every incentive to f!et property Lack on the tax rolls as soon
as possible. Therefore. the League recommends: thar the provininn concerning
one-half installation of improvements be deleted or at the very least clarified,
and that the eight year limit on tax-exempt status be removed.
D5-9. SMALL CI'I1ES COMMUNITY BLKE GkA%,'I PRWJ:AM (C)
The League supports the state's continued administration of the Small
Cities portion of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The
League also supports the continuation of Ole- set aside of federal funds for
economic development grants and augmented state appropriations to supplement the
federal funds set aside. The League discourages am legislative attempt to deal
statutorily with complex, specific program criteria that are best handled
administratively.
The Small Cities CDPC program should continue as a source of funding which
encourages cities to "develop viable communities by providing decent housing and
suitable living environment ,nnd expanding economic opportunities, principally
for purposes of low- and moderate -income," in compliance with congressional
intent. The state should maintain the CDBG program balance betweer. cities'
economic development needs and the needs of low- and moderate -income people.
Cities should retain maximum flexibility in determining how to carry out CDBG
program objectives.
-38-
December 11, 1984
TO: Legislative Committee
FROM: Diane Loeffler, Legislative Representative
RE: Adoption of Revenues Sources Proposed Policies
The attached policies have been adopted by the Revenue Sources Committee and
are prioritized below. These policies as adopted by the Legislative Committee
will be brought to the general membership at the Legislative Conference on
January 29, 1985.
Number Policy Title
Prior
RS-1
local Government Aid A
RS-2
Property Tax Reform A
RS-3
Levy Limits A
RS-4
Municipal Bonds B
RS-5
License Fees B
RS-6
Special Assessments Financing B
RS-7
Equipment Financing B
RS-8
Malting Plants B
RS-9
Railroad Taxation C
RS-10
Tax -Exempt Property C
RS-11
Assessment Equalization C
RS-12
Local Option Taxing C
-39-
RI'VEN11F. SOURCES PROPOSED POLICIES
RS-2. PROPERTY TAX REFORM (A)
In enacting any major reforms of the Minnesota property tax system, the
Legislature should ensure that the following conditions are met:
1) The impact of the proposal has been thoroughly analyzed not only from
a statewide perspective but also in terms of its impact on individual
communities.
2) There should not be major shifts in the relative relationship of tax
burdens between taxing jurisdictions.
3) All significant changes should be phased in so that cities can
adequately plan for any needed adjustments.
4) Property tax reform should not jeopardize existing a,�velopment
districts whose establishment and financing was based on continued maintenance
of the current tax structure. Any tax reform needs to recognize existing tax
increment finance districts and their cash flow and obligations as outlined in
their tax increment financing plan. Impact on enterprise zones must also be
addressed.
S) Local government aid should he maintained as an essential component of
the property tax system. (See the separate policy on local government aid for
the League's position on this.)
6) If the net individual homestead tax burden is increased, the state
dollars freed up should be used for property tax relief such as the circuit
breaker. Changes in the circuit breaker application procedure should then be
implemented so that qualifying property owners are able to meet their tax
obligations without increasing delinquency rates or jeopardizing their cash
flow to the point that their ability to get or maintain mortgage financing
with tax escrow accounts is jeopardized.
7) Simplification and accountability are desirable goals that should be
addressed within the above tenets.
Many significant changes to the overall property taA system are currently
being considered. Because no specific proposals had been put forward during the
development of these policies the League has developed some general criteria to
consider in evaluating any tax reform proposal.
It is very important that any proposal be evaluated on the basis of its
impact on individual communities. A proposal that appears balanced on a
statewide basis can have a very diverse impact on individual cities.
The disparity or differen:e in property tax burdens among taxpayers in
neighboring tax jurisdictions should be kept within acceptable limits. Any
imposed disparities could have a significant impact on the ability of cities
to compete on a fair basis with each other for residents or economic
development.
Tax increment districts are dependent on the mill rate and assessment ratios
of the current property tax system. The financial viability of those projects
-41-
RS-21. PROPERTY TAX REFORM (A) (cont'd)
should not he jeopardized by state imposed changes in the tax structure.
Likewise, enterprise zone bus.nesses have been recruited based on a commitment
that they would receive a preferential classification ratio in the calculation
of their property tax obligations. These development districts should be
protected from any negative consequences of tax reform. The tax increment
financing plan in effect at the time that legislation is passed should be the
basis for determining remedies.
Any reduction or elimination of the state homestead creuit program should
not be implemented unless the freed state dollars are dedicated to property tax
relief.
Consideration is being given to reducing or removing the homestead credit
in favor of greater reliance on the circuit breaker. Implementation of such a
system might jeopardize the ability of some homeowners to make their May
property t•x obligations or be able to afford higher escrow account payments
on their 4 tgages. It is recommended that if such a system is implemented
that homeowners apply for .t early in the year and have it credited against
their tax bill in both the May and October payments. Perhaps the application
for circuit breaker could be sent out with the property tax statements.
RS-3. ELIMINATION OF LEVY LIMITS (A)
The League of Minnesota Cities recommends that the Minnesota Legislature
repeal the levy limit laws in M.S. 275.51, M.S. 275.11, M.S. 426.04, and M.S.
412.251.
Cities in Minnesota must comply with multiple limits on their ability to
levy taxes. These limits are confusing and complex to administer.
All cities are subject to a per capita limit outlined in M.S. 275.11.
Certain levies are allowed outside this levy limit but these special levies
differ from those contained in the other limits.
Statutory cities are further constrained by a millage limit on their
general purposes levy found in M.S. 412.251. Special purpose levies are allowed
outside of this levy limit. Home rule cities may have levy limits in their
carter. Their charter limit may be affected by M.S. 426.04 if it is less than
13 1/3 mills. Iron Range home rule cities in which more than 25 percent of the
assessed value consist-. of iron ore have special provisions in statute.
The percentage limit in M.S. 275.51 is the one the majority of cities are
most constrained by and the one most policy makers are familiar with. The 1983
legislature exempted all cities with less than 5,000 residents from this
limitation. This was a positive step, since this levy limit law, with all its
special levies and frequent changes and exemptions, required cities with
relatively simple budgets and small staffs to engage in time-consuming,
cost' , and complex efforts to operate within the complexities of the law.
The league feels that all cities should be trusted to responsibly use their
taxing authority. The League continues to oppose levy limits because they apply
uniform state-wide restrictions to cities and are too inflexible. The current
KS-3. ELIMINAT'_ON OF LEVY I.1M1TS (A) (cont'd)
laws do not re..agnize changing local conditions with respect to expenoicure
needs or revenue sources. For example, no allowance is made for cucbarks in
federal revenue sharing or for changes in the method )f financing some
activities. Tne law doei not make adequate allowance for the additional cost of
mun.cipal services due to an annexation or consolidation or for shifts of
service or costs of services between governmental units.
Given uncertainties in state and federal f1-.i,!,cial aids and the diverse
problems and circumstances faced by cities thiiu&:.out the state,uniform limits
are impractical. Such laws are inconsistent w.th the_ principlcr o: local
self-government and accountability.
RS-4. MUNICIPAL BONDS (B)
The League of Minnesota Cities recommends that the Legislature repeal
interest rate limitations on general obligation and revenue bonds of cities.
The traditional way of financing most local public improvements and
facilities has been and will likely continue to be through the issuance of
bonds. If the needs for replacement, repair, or expansion of local capital
improvements are to be met at a reasonable cost, a broad market for municipal
bonds must be maintained at the most favorable interest rates possible. It is
the League's position that artificial statutory bond interest ceilings do not
have the effect of holding down interest rates, and may in fact add somewhat
to the costs of bond issuance by the creation of additional legal and
procedural requirements.
Because interest rates in the bond market fluctuate in response to a
combination of many economic forces, it is inappropriate to impose an interest
ceiling upon local governments. Local officials must operate within the
realities of the market and whether there is a statutory ceiling or not they
have every incentive to keep issuance costs as low as possible.
RS-S. LICENSE FEES (B)
The Legislature should repeal all maximum fee provisions relating to
off -sale liquor, on -sale wine, bottle club and Sunday liquor licenses and
cities to decide locally the appropriate fee to charge for such licenses.
allow
With few exceptions, the statutes granting authority to issue licenses or
permits do not specify maximum fees. Cities have the discretion to set fees,
based on their own costs, needs, and standards. Case law provides ample
limitations on cities' power to set license fees in that revenues produced
must be related to the cost of issuing the license and regulating the licensed
business.
It is inappropriate for the Legislature to set wximum fees for off -sale
liquor, on -sale wine, bottle club and Sunday liquor licenses. Cities have acted
responsibly in using their discretion to set on -sale liquor license fees. It
-43-
RS-5. LICENSE FEES ti I
makes no sense to grant that hewer and then to deny them the power to set
off -sale liquor and on -gale wine license fees as well as Sunday liquor and
bottle club fees. There is no evidence to show that lifting the statutory cap
would lead to unjustified fee Increases. Some sort of reasonable increases in
off -sale license fees could he expected in light of the fact that the statutory
maximum fee hasn't been increased for over 30 years.
RS-6. SPECIAL. ASSESSMENT FINANCING W
The law on interest charges on special assessments should he changed to
that a city may charge an interest rate that more fully reflects the cost of
the financing.
Special assessments financed by bonds.
In 1982 the legislature changed the law governing the statutory interest
ceiling for municipal bonds. The new law, which provides for a floating monthly
maximum interest rate, creates a problem concerning the interest rate which a
municipality may charge on special assessments. The interest rate which may be
charged is determined according to the maximum rate allowed to be paid on
municipal bonds for the month in which the resolution authorizing the special
assessment is adopted. If a city sells the assessment bonds in a later month,
the interest rate payable on the bonds may he greater than that allowed to be
charged for the special assessment. The city is left having to absorb extra
costs.
The league recommends that the law be changed to ensure that a city may
charge an interest rate on special assessments at least one percentage point
higher than the rate payable on the bonds which finance the assessment.
Special assessments financed internally by a city.
M.S. 429.061, subd. 2, restricts to 8 percent the interest rate a city may
charge on internally financed special assessments. The League recommends that
the allowable interest rate be increased to more accurately reflect the cost to
the city of internally financing as- --.-ants.
M.S. 412.32 should be amended s,. all Minnesota cities are able to
issue Tr -five-year equipment certificate.; i an amount not to exceed one percent
of the city's assessed valuation in any given year. No reverse referendum
provision should apply unless the city wishes to exceed the one percent limit.
Statutory cities in Minnesota have the power to issue certificates of
indebtedness, payable in not more than five years, to purchase fire, police,
ambulance, street construction, or maintenance equipment. (M.S. 412.301.) if
the amount of the certificates exceeds one percent of the city's assessed
valuation, a reverse referendum provision applies.
In 1983, the legislature granted similar financing powers t Minnesota's
home rule charter cities (M.S. 412.32). without any reverse referendum
provision. However, the total principal amount of the certificates (or
"capital notes") issued in a fiscal year is limited to no more one -tenth
of one percent of the city's assessed value that year. In many ri`.es, this
limit is prohibitively low, and effectively prevents the city fs./r makinK use
of the authority granted in this statute.
RS-8 . MAI.T 1 NC STRUCTURES 00
The league recommends that the legislature specifically designate all
structures used in the process of creating malt from grain as well as structures
used for storage and drying grain as real property subject to property taxation.
Recently a Minnnesota Tax Court decision declared that portions of the
structures used in the process of converting grain into malt were attached
machinery and therefore exempt from real property taxation. The impact of
this decision on property taxes in certaii. areas with a concentration of
malting operations is significant. There is concern that based on this
precedent, the courts could extend the exemption to any structure specifically
designed for warehousing certain goods or commodities such as grain elevators.
The legislature has specifically designated electric generating plants and
equipment as real property subject to property taxes so there is precedent for
this type of designation.
RS-9. RAILROAD TAXATION (C)
A new formula should be adopted for the valuation of railroad operating
property for property tax purposes.
The existing system for taxation of railroad operating property is not
consistent with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties. The
present formula values railroad operating property at about 20% of the value
which would be determined by a local assessor using generally accepted assessing
principles. The League recommends that a new system of property taxation be
established which enable railroads operating in Minnesota to be taxed consistent
with the taxation of other commercial and industrial properties. This system
shoul1 contain the following features:
A new formula should be developed for the valuation of railroad operating
property for property tax purposes. The new formula should contain two equal
factors. One of these factors should be 50 percent of an amount based upon:
the average value of all of the taxable land in the city or county times the
area of the railroad operating land plus the value of railroad operating
structures as determined by the local assessor. The other factor would be an
amount based on either the stock and debt of the railroad or the
capitalization of earnings approach.
"Operating land" is defined to mean any land which underlies the operating
structures defined below and rights -of -ways adjacent thereto and which is
necessary to the integral performance of railroad transportation services.
"Operating structures" is defined to mean all structures owned or used by a
railroad company in the performance of railroad transportation services
including without limitation, franchises, bridges, trestles, tracks, shops,
docks, wharves, buildings, and other related structures. All operating
structures except railroad bridges, trestles, tracks. docks and wharves,
should be taxable.
The present system for valuing and taxing non -operating property should not
be changed.
-a 5-
RS-10. TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY (C)
State, county, school district, city, region,,] government, and other owners
(if tax-exempt property (except houses of worship) should be required to
reimburse cities for the cost of police, fire and street services.
One of thF glaring inequities in the Minnesota tax system involves local
services that are provided free to tax-exempt property owned or used by the
state, counties, school districts, regional governmental bodies, and by
certain non -governmental organizations. It is widely acknowledged that such
property benefits directly from governmental services such as police and fire
protection and street services provided by cities. Since there is no legal
basis, however, for claiming reimbursement for the costs of such service, they
are bu.,.e by the local taxpayers. Furthermore, such property is concentrated
in certain cities, resulting in a heavy cost burden upon those cities.
RS-11. ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATI0y (C)
The Legislature should repeal the coefficient Lf eIspersion penalty
provision. The League opposes the sales ratio being used as a br - for either
penalties or bonuses in state aid .unds after the formula distri' has been
AptPrRlinpA `
The League favors improved property assessment practices for numerots
reasons. First, county, school and special district levies overlap various city
taxing jurisdictions. If the sales ratio of one city is lower than that of
another city in the same county, the residerts of the high -sales ratio city bear
an unfair additional tax burden.
Second, various state formulas consider property tax base valuation in
distributing aid. Although sales ratios are used as an equalizing factor, sales
ratios themselves are often flawed or inaccurate because of the difficulty of
computing ratios. The recently adopted adjustments to reflect the effect of
seller financing were a significant improvement but problems still remain.
There may not be enough sales in a given class of property in an area to
accurately determine a sales ratio. Also cities with diverse or unique
properties have a much more difficult time assigning market values than more
homogenous communities.
It is important to recognize that statistics such as sales ratios and
coefficients of dispersion (which are calculated from sales ratios) are at best
general indicators. They are tools for helping assessors and for insuring as
equitable as possible distribution of state aids. However, they should not be
used as precise measurements for additional penalties or bonuses of state aid
funds once the distribution has been calculated.
Coefficient of Dispersion Penalty
For the past several years the deadline for the effective date of the
statutory coefficient of dispersior penalty has been extended due to ma or
problems in administering the law fairly. If the Legislature determines a
need exists, the Commissioner of Revenue should be reauired to order a
reassessment of an area by an independent appraiser if indicators fall
significantly below acceptable national standards. The costs of such
reassessment should be borce by the responsible assessing jurie.diction.
-4t:-
RS-11. ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION (C)
Sales Ratio Equals-ation
The Legislature should require that all cities have at least a 907 sales
ratio. The sales ratio sample should be conducted or audited by the state
Department of Revenue, the Commissioner of which would be required to make
aggregate increases in those cities below 907. All costs incurred by the
Commissioner shall be paid by the assessing jurisdiction. The sales ratio
sample should be for a 12-month period, beginning no more than 18 months
be=ore the assessment date.
RS-:2. LOCAL OPTION TAXES (C)
The league recommends that cities be given local option as to other
non-traditional revenue sources in the event that state shared revenues are cut
back.
Loca' option taxes such as city or regior imposed sales or income taxes
should be considered only to replace any loss in state shared revenues. The} -
should not replace the traditional revenues of cities. Sales and income taxes
are much more volatile in that they more directly reflect national economic
trends. Few cities have the capacity to accurately predict changes in their
econo^ny and thus financial planning for these revenues would be difficult.
-47-
December 17, 1984
TO: LMC Member Cities
FROM: Ann Higgins, Staff Associate
RE: Federal Legislation Proposed Policies
The attached policies have been :,dopted by the legislative Committee and are
listed below. These policies as adopted will be brought to the general
membership at the Legislative Conference (in January 29, 1985.
Number
Policy Title
F:.-1
General Revenue Sharing
FI.-1
Municipal Bonds
Industrial Development Bonds
F1.-4
Wastewater Treatment
Fl,_5
Lead -Contaminated Soil
F1,-6
Job Training, Partnership Act
F1.-7
Infrastructure
-49-
0j'ii41.+• : i;i 1C11;S
FL - I. (;FNLRAI. RE.VENUF SHARING
The League Supports the reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing by the
99th Congress at an increased level of fundi"g. The League opposes inclusion of
energy severance taxes in the calculation of fiscal effort attributed to the
states in the determination of GRS allocations.
Congress and the adr.1nistrativn shoulu resist the tctuptation to use GRS as
a lever cc obtain ether Lovernmental reforms, at the local level. Revenue
sharing should be i. flexilhic, decent ral:ztd prograir. free of bureaucratic
entanglevents.
Tire League is nut encouraged by the direction thus far of the U.S.
Treasury's study of the program, which, to date, has focused on the cost to the
Treasury of deductibility of state and local taxes.The League opposes any effort
to further restrict or eliminate tax- exempt bonding authority for cities or the
removal of deductibility of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns
in order to obtui. CO-.AITtUFd adequate levels of funding for General Revenue
Sharing for cities.
Neithe- does the League favor the creation of a Taxable Bond Option as a
substitute for the continued authority of cities to use tax-exempt municipal
bond.
the League undert.tnnd:; C.aiL the federal government is considering budget
revisions thac cut program:. o: interest tit cities. The League is quite clear,
however, that tLe General Revenue Sharing. Program is of vital importance to all
Minnesota cities. These cities utilize GRS to account for a significant portioc.
of their budgets. Since, in most instances, those funds are a part of the
city's operating, bt:dgeL, reductions in GRS leave cities no choice but to raise
taxes or reduce city r.crvices and personnel. neither alternative is an
acceptable method of dealing; with the increasing, needs of city residents for
these services given the loss of other urban assistance programs.
FL-2. Ml'":,CIPA'� PONT'S
The league supprrts Lice raintc.nance of the tax-exempt status of state .nd
local bonds. Tlie traditional way of financing most local public improvements of
facilitlet: has been through the '.ssuance of bonds, and this is likely to
continue for the foreseeable future. Consequently, if the need for local
improvements is to be met at a reasonable cost. it is imperative that a broad
market be maintained for municipal bonds at the most favorable interest rates
possible.
The exemption from federal income taxes of the interest on municipal bonds
has c,oen and continues to be the key factor in maintaining a healthy market for
municipal hon.!s. This tax-exempt status of state and local issues not only
maintains a separate market for thew, but also recognizes the right of state and
local government to independently manage their fiscal affairs. in recent years,
however, some have become concerned that the traditional market for state and
local hondm will not lit• able to satisfy the rapidly growing, need for capital for
public purpo,,Eti. Concern:, :.,eve al:,r ►,ctr raised about existing; methods of tax
FL-2. MUNICIPAL BONDS
avoidance, including tax-exempt interest on state and local bonds. These two
concerns have resulted in several bills in Congress to make interest on state
and local bonds taxable.
A convincing case has not been made for such a radical change which could
damage the independence and viability of state and local government.
FL-3. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS
The League supports the continued availability of small issue industrial_
development bonds to cities after December 31, 1986.
The League continues to oppose federal efforts restricting local authority
to issue IDBs through the imposition of state -by -state per capita volume limits.
The League also urges Congress to remove the December 31, 1986 sunset on the
current authority of cities to issue small issue IDBs.
Industrial development bonds are useful tools which allow cities to take an
active role in fostering a diverse range of economic development or
redevelopment projects. They are also the primary means by which cities can
provide employment opportunities within the city. Due to federal program
cutbacks, the need for locally controlled development tools is greater than ever
before.
The League does not find evidence sufficient to conclude that the volume of
tax-exempt debt is a significant factor in determining interest rates on general
obligation bonds. Many factors may reduce the demand for bonds and force
interest rates to rise. To attribute high municipal bond rates to the
availability of small issue industrial development bonds ignores the complexity
and volatility of the present economy.
Furthermore, large issue IDBs take up a much larger percentage of the
tax-exempt market than do small issues. The League recommends, however, that
any issuer be required to adopt and follow local, guidelines ensuring that the
projects be part of an overall economic anu physical development plan for the
city.
FL-4. Wastewater Tteatment (A)
LMC supports a return to a federal government share of 75 percent of the
cost of rehabilitation, repair, upgrading and new construction and favors
continued eligibility (for federal funding) for construction of treatment
plants, incrrceptors, and major appurtenances, infiltration inflow collection,
major sewer rehabilitation, collector sewers, and combined sewer-verflow
projects.
Funding for the program should be substantially increased to ensure that
cities will be able to continue their pollution abatement efforts on an
uninterrupted basis. The League opposes any reduction in federal funding of
these programs.
-51-
FL-4. WASTFWATER TREATMENT (cont'd)
The league supports the creation; of a federal lo,:n program to assist in
the financing of wastewater treatment projects, but only as a supplement to the
existing grant program and not as a replacement program.
Federal grants should be made to the states through water quality block
grants, with the focus on achieving significant improvement of water quality.
Oversight by EPA should be restricted to general oversight of grant
administration by the State agencies responsible, such as the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency.
A great deal of the costs of construction is directly attributable to
delays in processing the grants and reviewing the projects. There is little
doubt that the administrative costs could he reduced significantly by employing
block grant deliveries to the states.
Clean water is important to the economic and social well-being of not only
the State of Minnesota, but the nation as a whole. The League supports the
federal government's recognition of water quality as a national problem and
feels the establishment of national water quality standards is appropriate,
providing that the federal government assists in funding necessary programs.
Assistance from the federal government is necessary if there is to be any
hope of meeting the 1988 target date for effluent standards. If federal funds
are not available to support the requirements and objective of the Act,
t metables for meeting these requirements should be postponed or the
r quirements reduced. The League suggests that the Environmental Protection
l,gency's compliance policy should be modified so that municipal wastewater
treatment compliance plans can be structured to achieve the level of compliance
that is consistent with federal financial assistance.
Additionally, the League recommends that wastewater treatment programs be
modified to provide financing to upgrade alternative environmentally sound
systems of on -site or community disposal of domestic and commercial waste in
cities.
The existing system has tended to rely too heavily on single solution
approaches which may not be appropriate or economically feasible in small
communities. As a result, small cities have been required to install very
costly central collection and treatment systems without regard to cost/benefit
considerations or their ability to finance the continuing operation of such
systems. Similarly, larger cities have been discouraged from using alternative
strategies where they might be appropriate.
FL-5. LEAD -CONTAMINATED SUIT.
The League of Minnesota Cities urges Congress to take action to eliminate
health problems caused by lead -contaminated soil and to adopt federal standards
for lead levels in soil as well as air quality rules to provide for the total
elimination of leaded gasoline for use by automohiles by the earliest possible
date.
Cities are pre-empted by the federal government from taking action to
protect residents from automotive lead emissions since regulation of air quality
Fl.-5. LEAI1-CoNlikNINATH) S(lil 4coni'd)
standards is a matter of federal jurisdiction. It is necessary for Congress and
federal agencies, and departments directly involved with air quality regulation
to recognize the threat to public health created by the continued presence of
high levels of lead contamination in inner city soil, resulting in large measure
from combustion of leaded gasoline.
4Af1ti1v there are st.)nuards for permissable levels of lead in air, water, and
paint, none now exist for limits on the amount of lead considered safe when
found in soil. Much of the :,oil in our inner cities is now contaminated to such
a degree that it would constitute a hazardous waste if found in an industrial
site. Since the major cunticving source of new lead exposure is the combustion
of leaded gasoline, it is incumbent on the federal government to take immediate
action to end the addition of new 1,ad contamination in our cities.
FL-6. JOB Training Partnership Act
The league supports changes in the .lob Training Partnership Act that will
encourage states and cities to increase job and training opportunities for the
hard tc, employ, including youth, dislocated employees and the structurally
unemployed. There is a need to direct services and employment opportunities to
those persons least likely to become fully employed without further education
and training. Those persons are also the most disadvantaged as a result of
long-term unemployment and beck of access to training opportunities. Federal
matching funds for state and local efforts as well as additional provision of
incentives to encourage states and cities to use other federal assistance to aid
targeted populations are also needed to support public and private action in
this a:!a. Included among such incentives, the league supports the continuation
of the Targeted Joins Tax Credit to encourage businesses to hire the structurally
unemployed and ('it -,advantaged youth.
Improvcments are also needed in both public and private job training,
programs. if training costs for private companies were made tax deductible when
made available to disadvantaged youth who lack work experience and basic
educational skills, private rector participation in such programs could be
expanded and sustained. The league supports such an approach as supplementary
to the continuation of the Job Training partnership Program.
F1.-7. Infrastructure ( )
The Lea ue supports the creation of a revolvi_ ng loan program to assist
financing the repair and rehabilitation of the urban infrastructure but only if
the program is supplemental to existing grant programs.
The federal government should recognize the importance of local public
facilities and infrastructure to economic and community developme t. Current
federal financial assistance is inadequate to meet existing and future
infrastructure needs. Funding for existing infrastructure -related grant
programs, such as the federal aid highway, transit, and wastewater treatment
programs, should he incre.ised, and a multi -year loan program should be created
to supplement federal grants. Making both grant and loans available would
provide cities more flexibility in structuring tLuir local construction
f inancin), pror.rairs.
FI.-5. LP.A11—CoN I,si.•1iNA'I FII til 11. (cts:iI ' d )
standards is a matter sit federal jurisdiction. It is necessary for Congress and
federal agencies; and departments directly involved with air quality regulation
to recognize the threat to public health created by the continued presence of
high levels of lead contamination in inner city soil, resulting in large measure
from combustion of leaded gasoline.
While there are :standards for permissable levels of lead in air, water, and
paint, none now exist for limits on the amount of lead considered safe when
found in soil. Much of the soil in our inner cities is now contaminated to such
a degree that it would constitute a hazardous waste if found in an industrial
site. Since the major continuing source of new lead exposure is the combustion
of leaded gasoline, it is incumbent on the federal government to take immediate
action to end the addition of new lead contamination in our cities.
FL-6. JOB Training Partnership Act
The League supports changes in the .Job Training Partnership Act that will
encourage states and cities to increase job and training opportunities for the
hard to employ, including youth, dislocated employees and the structurally
unemployed. There is a need to direct services and employment opportunities to
those persons least likely to become fully employed without further education
and training. Those persons are also the most disadvantaged as a result of
long-term unemployment and lack of access to training opportunities. Federal
matching funds for state and local efforts as well as additional provision of
incentives to encourage states and cities to use other federal assistance to aid
targeted populations are also needed to support public and private action in
this area. Included among such incentives, the League supports the continuation
of the Targeted Jobs Tax Credit to encourage businesses to hire the structurally
unemployed and disadvantaged youth.
Improvements are also needed in both public and private job training
programs. If training costs for private companies were made tax deductible when
made available o disadvantaged youth who lack work experience and basic
educational skills, private sector participation in such programs could be
expanded and sustained. The league supports such an approach as supplementary
to the continuation of the Job Training Partnership Program.
FL-7. Infrastructure ( )
The League supports the creation of a revolving loan program to assist
financing the repair and rehabilitation of the urban infrastructure but only if
ram is supplemental to existing grant programs.
The federal government should recognize the importance of local public
facilities and infrastructure to economic and community development. Current
federal financial assistance is inadequate to meet existing and future
infrastructure nerds. Funding for existing infrastructure -related grant
programs, such as the federal aid highway, transit, and wastewater treatment
programs, should be increased, and a multi -year loan program should be cheated
to supplement federal grants. Making both grants and loans available would
provide cities more flexibility in structuring their local construction
financing programs.