HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-17_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 17, 1983
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
PRESENTATION OF COLORS - Girl Scout Troop 1195 - Cornelia School
MINUTES of August 30, Sept. 13, Sept. 22, Sept. 27, Dec. 29, 1982 and January 3,
1983, approved as submitted or amended by motion of , seconded by
I.' PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS Affidavits of Notice by
Clerk. Presentation by Planning Department. Spectators heard. First
Reading of Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 fav-
orable rollcall vote to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be
waived. Lot Divisions, Flood Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Admini-
strative or Board of Appeals and Adjustments decisions require action by
Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
II. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Edina's Community Task Force II
III. AWARD OF BIDS AND QUOTES Tabulations and Recommendations by City Manager.
Action of Council by Motion.
A. Civil Defense Warning Siren
B. Deep Well 467 Overhaul
C. Park Calendar Printing
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of 2/11/83
B. Legislative Meeting - Friday, January 21 - 7:30 a.m.
C. Legislative Discussion
D. Final Report - Infiltration Inflow Study
-E. Feasibility Report (83 -1) Set Hearing Date
F. Long Range Plan - Demographics
G. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
H. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
I. Appointment of Weed Inspector
2. Set Hearing Date - Easement Vacation - L. 1, Bl. 1, Graytower Estates
V. FINANCE
A. Motion of seconded by , for payment of the follow-
ing Claims as per Pre - Lists: General Fund, $111,429.51; Park Fund,
$26,436.15; Art Center, $4,286.46; Golf Course, $2,967.31; Arena,
$8,022.74; Gun Range, $.379.92; Water, $12,502.88; Sewer, $8,700.11;
Liquor Fund, $119,503.96; Construction, $50,678.06; Total, $344,907.10;
and for confirmation of payment of the following Claims: General Fund,
$3,403.12; Park Fund, $674.58; Art Center, $322.50; Golf Course,
$5,501.70; Arena, $1,733.65; Water Fund, $1,935.88; Sewer, $141,097.00
Liquor Fund, $693.13; Total, $165,361.56
Sally Olsen
District 41A
Golden Valley /St. Louis Park
Committees:
Taxes
Education
School Aids Division
General Legislation and
Veterans Affairs
Council on the Economic
Status of Women
OF THE
W� Minnesota 0�01,-4r,
ya
+n -
} t. O'n of
.t' NE
January 12, 1983
Mayor, City Council Ptembers and City :tanager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Ninnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN , 55416
RE: Pinnehaha Creek Headwaters Control Structure
DNR Permit No. 76 -6240
Request for ";odification of Gray's Bay Operational Plant
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Manager:
Residents of the Minnehaha Gables Addition of St. Louis Park have reviewed
in detail the Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating
Procedures of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated September 16,
1982. It is our understanding that the DNR has not yet approved this
policy.
Therefore, we are requesting the City of St. Louis Park to prevail upon the
D \R for a public hearing opportunity as allowed by :Minnesota Statute 105.44,
subdivision 3, and as suggested in your M. & C. No. "82 -23 dated August 16,
1982, page 4, paragraph 1. We are making this request as we believe the
City of St. Louis Park's input contained in the city manager's letter to
David Cochran, President of the Board of *tanagers of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, on September 13, 1982, setting the minimum discharge
line at 928.6 on July 1 at a minimum of 15 c.f.s. was not reflected in the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's final policy. The watershed district's
proposal contained in the attachment to this letter states that from May 15
to September 15 the base flow will be 12 c.f.s. AVERAGE.
The key wor" is "average." It is entirely possible to have a zero c.f.s.
discharge during this period with a 12 c.f.s. average flow. We feel that a
minimum c.f.s. flow should be stated, and the City of St. Louis Park has
stated a reasonable base of 15 c.f.s. It is our thought that the c.f.s. flow
should be greater, or a different formula based on the level of the lake
should be used to provide an adequate flow during the open water season. As
we interpret the watershed district's policy, the creek could be restricted
to a 12 c.f.s. flow even if the lake level should rise to a 929.6 level, a
whole foot higher than the old dam level of 928.6.
The Edina City Council, in a 1982 Resolution, also made several points with
which v:e agree. Edina suggested that the management policy include:
NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
Reply to: J 329 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 296.3964 `(
i
C 3307 Decatur Lane. St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 9 .1.1 -14.13
Mayor, City Council Members and City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
January 12, 1983
Page Two
"An adequate base flow for the open water season should be provided to ensure
recreational uses during June, July and August," and "The rapid and drastic
draw downs of Lake Minnetonka in early spring and late fall months should be
reduced to accomplish the objectives of the Headwaters Control Structure."
The Minneapolis City Council also passed a Resolution on April 30, 1982,
stating, "The City Council believes creek flow is being artificially restricted
during the open water season," and "The City Council supports a change in the
Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedure which
will to the extent possible provide a steady flow in Minnehaha Creek during the
open water season."
We urge the St. Louis Park City Council to take prompt action to request such
a public hearing from the DNR. Copies of this letter will be forwarded to the
Edina and Minneapolis City Councils asking them to take similar actions requesting
such a hearing.
Thank you for your prompt attention.
Sincerely,
,4allyv Ols
State Representative
cc; Mayor and City Council
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Alderman Walter Rockenstein
City of Minneapolis
City Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist
Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
r
Draft Resolution
September lb, 1982
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
OF MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
APPROVING THE MANAGEMENT POLICY.AND
OPERATING PROCEDURES DOCUMENT
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, following
public review and comment, adopted a Management Policy for the
Headwaters Control Structure on November 17, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the Management Policy was further considered at a
Joint public hearing held by the Corps of Engineers, Department of
Natural Resources and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on
February 8, 1978; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on
July 26, 1979, issued Permit No. 76 -b240 to construct the
Headwaters Control Structure which included, as Special Provision
No. X, an Operation Plan for the Headwaters Control Structure,
which was based on and incorporated the District's Management
Policy dated November 17, 1977; and
WHEREAS, the District has found this Operational Plan to
unnecessarily restrict discharge to Minnehaha Creek under certain
conditions and that the Operational Plan limits the District's
ability to effectively respond to actual and changing lake and
creek conditions; and
WHEREAS, Special Provision No. X requires the District to
submit to the DNR a proposed Operational Plan prior to January 1,
1933, for the operating period of March 1, 1983 through March 1,
1936, incorporating any amendments to the existing Operational
Plan deemed wart -anted by the District based upon operating
experience and data available to the District; and
WHEREAS, the District,.on February 24, 1982, distributed a
preliminary proposal for modification of the adopted Management
Policy and existing Operational Plan to all municipalities and
interested persons within the District for review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Managers reviewed all comments received
as a result of the preliminary proposal distributed February 24,
1932, both written and verbal.; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Managers subsequently met with
representatives of municipalities and interested groups to discuss
the concerns expressed and comments received; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Managers then directed staff to revise
the preliminary proposal distributed February 24, 1982.,
Incorporating the. comments received to the greatest extent
City of Edina
Re: Amendment to Ordinance No. 406 to Correct t
a Typographical Error Appearing in
Ordinance No. 406 -A1
Dear
In reviewing Ordinance No. 406 of the City, in
connection with another matter, it came to our attention that
certain language was inadvertently omitted when the ordinance
was typed by the City. Enclosed is proposed Ordinance No.
406 -A3 amending Ordinance No. 406 to include such language.
Should you have questions or comments, please call.
VTY
�l
the
Volume XI Number 3, October - November 1982
A NEWSLETTER OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION /Twin Cities Area
SLUDGE DISPOSAL PROGRAM AT PEAK
Demand is greater than the supply
by lean Helget
Yes! There is a waiting list of farmers who want to :utilize
the nutrient value of the sludge generated at MWCC's
facilities. The MWCC program of land application of
sludge is of relatively recent vintage but has grown dra-
matically during the past 2 to 3 years. The groundwork for
the program was laid in 1973 when this agency entered
into a joint demonstration project with the U of M, USDA,
and USEPA. This project, which is still ongoing, has
demonstrated that sludge can be used on crop land
without creating problems. In 1978 it was determined that
because of limited incinerator capacity at the Metro Plant
(MWCC's largest treatment facility) effluent standards
could not be met unless an alternative method of sludge
disposal was developed. MWCC's program of controlled
land application was developed as that alternative. The
current success of the program is due to the combined
efforts of a large number of individuals representing the U
of M, USDA, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), a number of local township and county officials,
the contractors involved in the project, finally MWCC's
staff.
When_ the program was'initiated in 1978 many people
were skeptical about the fertilizer value of sludge;
however, results of the demonstration project conducted
at the University of Minnesota Rosemount Experiment
Station generally alleviated most concerns. Since its incep-
tion, the program has been governed by the MPCA-
initially by a set of recommendations and more recently by
permanent sludge management rules.
The MPCA is charged with the ultimate responsibility of
determining if a particular site is suitable for sludge
application; however, a considerable amount of work is
done before submitting an application to that agency.
Applications are not submitted unless all MPCA criteria for
soil characteristics and separation distances are met. This
requires that soil samples be collected and analyzed.
Subsequent to submitting the application, MPCA conducts
a site visit. Local officials are invited to attend all site visits
to provide both technical and non - technical input.
When an MPCA Letter of Approval (Permit) is eventually
issued it means that the site meets all the published
criteria. The MPCA rules governing the agricultural use of
wastewater treatment plant sludges limit the annual appli-
cation of available nitrogen and cadmium to any particular
site. These limitations are based on soil characteristics and
expected crop yield and are specifically stated in each
MPCA Letter of Approval. In addition, cumulative loadings
for five metals, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc,
are established based on soil characteristics.
Nancy Schumacher (MWCC Eniri►onmental Scientist) checking farmers sludge fertilized corn field on luly'81h, 1981.
0
An analytical program along with an inventory system
were developed to insure compliance with the MPCA
limits. The dewatered sludge is monitored on a daily basis
for solids content, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
cadmium. in addition, samples are collected on a weekly
basis for determining the concentrations of copper, nickel,
lead, zinc, and chromium. During 1981 approximately
4,200 sludge analyses were conducted.
Two types of dewatered sludge are produced, filter cake
and press cake. The two types of cake differ in the method
used to condition solids prior to dewatering and equip-
ment used for dewatering. The conditioning method is of
more concent because it is in this step that pathogens are
destroyed.
The filter cake is conditioned by chemical means. After
the addition of ferric chloride, sufficient lime is added to
raise the pH to 12 or above. The conditioned slurry is then
dewatered on a device called a vacuum filter. Approxi-
mately 90 percent of the cake (wet weight basis) ultimately
spread on land was produced by this process. The
remaining portion of the sludge is thermally conditioned
at a temperature of approximately 350 °F. The conditioned
sludge is subsequently thickened and dewatered on a
plate and frame press. Because of the good dewatering
characteristics and the high pressure used in the presses
the cake produced has a much higher solid content. .
In mid 1980 MWCC entered into a three -year contract
with W &G Rehbein Bros., Inc. to obtain the necessary
permits, haul, and spread the sludge. Prior to that time the
agricultural use of sludge average approximately 1500 tons
per month. Since that time however useage has averaged
well over 15,000 tons per month. It is believed that the
dramatic increase is due to a number of factors including:
an increase awareness of MWCC's program, a better
understanding of the health and environmental safeguards
built into the program through MPCA sludge management
rules, the fact that the cost of nitrogen fertilizer remained
high.as.the general farm economy continued to falter, and
the fact that the sludge is applied to the land at no cost to
the farmer. Prior to mid 1980 sludge was delivered to the
farm site at no cost; however, the farmer was responsible
for spreading the material Which required considerable
effort.
During 1981 a total of approximately 190,000 . tons of
dewatered sludge was applied -to- farmland in' 9 -area
counties. During the first nine months of this year
approximately 127,000 tons have been applied to approx-
imately 150 sites in 9 -area counties. The peak fall season is
still ahead which will result in approximately 200,000 tons
to spread by the end of the year. i
Fall is the. peak season for delivering and spreading
sludge on. farm fields because the -crops have been -
harvested and the fields generally are in better condition
than in the spring in terms of moisture content. In
addition, the road weight restrictions which are generally
enforced during the late winter and early spring no longer
limit assess to sites.. _
Between 80% and 90% of the sludge spread on agri-
cultural land is applied to land use for corn production.
High corn yields require considerable nitrogen and the
sludge can provide as much as 250 pounds of available
nitrogen per acre. The field pictured illustrates a corn crop
after sludge fertilization in 1981. The picture was taken on
July 8, 1981, and it is obvious that the corn was at least knee
high by the 4th of July. The farmer reported that it was his
best crop since 1953.
In addition to the direct utilization of dewatered sludge
on agricultural land, approximately 10,000 tons of compost
is produced annually at the Metro Plant. The compost has
been used primarily to establish turf grasses on area parks,
cemeteries, and completed land fills. The rules governing
compost application are not significantly different and
those which govern the agricultural use of sludge.
Four MWCC -staff members in the Quality Control
Department are directly involved -in the land application
program. Dr. Bob Polta has had overall responsibility for
the program since mid 1980. Rebecca Flood is responsible
for maintaining all records including 4 large electronic
(computer) data files. Nancy Schumacher represents
MWCC at all site visits and prepares applications for
MPCA approval of sites for liquid sludges produced at
several of MWCC's smaller facilities. Both Rebecca and
Nancy spend a considerable portion of their time
discussing the program with interested parties and
addressing complaints. An attempt is made to visit each
site as soon as possible after a complaint is received and
correct any problems that are observed. Claude Anderson
is responsible for the development of composting tech-
nology and coordinating compost production and
utilization.
Although the program is generally considered to be a
success it is not problem free. Most of the complaints
received are related to odor. Although ambient air samples
are.collected periodically and odor units determined, the
significance of any odor problem is difficult to quantify.
The most serious problem from an operational standpoint
is the fact that the hauling and spreading schedule is
impacted by the weather as well as the farmers planting
the harvesting schedule —which are all beyond MWCC's
control. As the new incineration facilities at the Metro
Plant are started up later this year and during 1983 the
quantity of sludge available for land operation will be
gradually reduced. It is anticipated, however, that the land
application program will be operational on a moderate
scale for at least several more years.
November Meeting Schedule
November 9 9:00 a.m. Environmental &
Operations Committee
2:00 p.m. Budget, Finance &
Personnel Committee
November 16 2:00 p.m. Regular Commission
Meeting
MWCC Central Offices .
350 Metro Square Building
St. Paul
People on the Move
New Hires: James Kilburg - Electrician, Seneca Plant;
William Walek - Operating Attendant, Metro Plant; Louis
Testa - Operating Attendant, Metro Plant; Michael
O'Donnell - Asst. Operator, Blue Lake.
Promotions: Mary Geisenhoff - Secretary to Director of
Operations; Terrie Leonard Lab Tech II, Metro Lab;
Harriet Williams - Secretary II, Operations; Robert
Johnson - Operator 1, Metro Plant; Herbert McKnight -
Process Operator 1, Metro Plant; Frank Belmares - Opera-
tor I, Metro Plant; Joseph Grove - Interceptor Service -
worker II, Interceptor System.
1983 Capital.
Improvement Program
The proposed 1983 Budget recently approved by the
Commission and currently under review by the Metro-
politan Council for formal approval provides for fourteen
(14) new projects in the amount of $5.1 million, and
additional appropriation of $41.8 million for fifteen (15)
previously approved projects.
The new projects include:
A. MWWTP Screen and Grit Rehabilitation ............. S 700,000
B. MWWTP Primary Settling Tank Rehabilitation ......... 1,000,000
C. MWWTP Secondary Treatment Facility Rehabilitation ... 900,000
D. Blue Lake Plant Sludge Thickening Facilities .......... 200,000
E. Chaska Plant Improvements ....................... 200,000
F. Maple Plain Plant Improvements ................... 100,000
G. Medina Interceptor ............................ 200,000
H. Minnesota River Study ........................... 100,000
1. MWWTP Peak Power Demand Study ................ 25,000
1. MWWTP Fire Detection and Alarm System Study ...... 25,000
K. Lift Station Electrical System Rehabilitation ........... - 25,000
L. Metering and Lift Station Alarm System Improvements .. 25,000
M. MWWTP Disinfection Study ....................... 100,000
N. Miscellaneous Capital Improvements ................ 1,500,000
TOTAL $5,110000
Additional appropriation of funds for previously
approved projects to be constructed include Lake Gervais
Interceptor - $8,000,000; C.A.B.-Interceptor (Champlin-
Anoka-Brooklyn Park) - $18,500,000; Seneca Plant Main-
tenance & Dispatch Building - $3,000,000; an expanded
treatment plant at Hastings - $9,300,000; and various other
capital improvement projects.
Treatment Plant Performance
Continues to Excel
During the first nine months of this year, treatment plant
performance at the system's 14 plants continues to be
excellent and well within state /federal standards. Compli-
ance level of achievement is 97.9% to date.
Out of a possible 1,772 violations that are allowed, a total
of twenty -three (23) have occurred to date at six of the
fourteen treatment plants. The eight plants that have
achieved 100% permit compliance represent 89% of the
total flow of the metropolitan area. MWCC is required to
report plant performance on a monthly basis in accord-
ance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
Summary of each plant's performance is as follows:
Treatment
Monthly
Per Cent
Plant
Flow (MGD)
Violations
Compliance
Anoka
2.2
1
99%
Bayport
0.5
0
100%
Blue Lake
15.0
0
100%
Chaska
0.7
0
100%
Cottage Grove
1.2
1
98%
Empire
4.5
3
96%
Hastings
1.4
14
83%
Maple Plain
0.4
2
94%
Medina
0.2
0
100%
Metropolitan
190.3
0
100%
Rosemount
0.3
0
100%
Savage
0.4
0
100%
Seneca
15.3
1
99%
Stillwater
2.5
0
100%
"We don't change the old by resisting:it
T We change the old by making it obsolete
through superior methodology."
r
IT
the Clean Up ,report
by Jean Helget
The nine - member Metropolitan Waste Control Commis-
sion holds public meetings on the third Tuesday of every
month at 2:00 p.m. This column provides significant
business items from the August - September meetings.
• Awarded contract for the Wayzata Odor Control,
Project 81 -65 -377 to Axel Newman Heating and
Plumbing Company in the amount of $43,625.00 at the
August 17th meeting.
• Awarded contract for the Process Piping Modifications,
Project 81 -65 -395 to Grudem Brothers Company of St.
Paul in the amount of $39,825.00 at the August 17th
meeting.
• Approved Pay Estimate No. 52 for Project No. 74 -01-
6(408), Sludge Processing Building with Paul Lawrence
in the amount of $1,498,997.12 for July and $1,138,307.69
for August.
• Authorized To Procure Training Services for. the 408
Facilities to Dale C. Bergstedt, P.E. EBSP and Peter Owre,
Envirotech in the amount of $30,980.00.
• Authorized the advertisements for bids for the leasing
of MWCC owned farmland in Dakota and Scott
Counties. The leases would be for one -year ending in
October 25, 1983.
• Amended Contract No. 198 with Rieke - Carroll- Muller,
Inc. for Step II engineering for Blue Lake Sludge
Thickening Facilities in the amount of $167,946.00.
• Authorized to execute the Agreement for Engineering
Services for the Lower Beltline Interceptor with
Howard, Needles, Tammen, Bergendoff & Associates in
the amount of $262,282.00 MWCC PROJECT NO. 76 -05.
• Authorized for engineering services for the .Medina
Interceptor, Project 83 -57, with Comstock and Davis,
Inc. in the amount of $62,161.00.
• Approved to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract
No. 687 with Henningson; Durham, Richardson} Inc. for
Step . III engineering services in the amount of
$380,870.00 contingent on State and Federal approval.
i
• Awarded Contract with the Harco Corporation of
Schaumburg, Illinois, for their lump sum bid of
$32,800.00 for the Cathodic Protection of three Sedimen-
tation Basins at the Seneca Wastewater Treatment Plant,
MWCC Program 041 - 5097 - (912).
• Approved Comprehensive Sewer Plans for the cities of
Forest Lake, Little Canada, Andover, Champlin, and
Columbus Township provided the Cities operate its
sanitary sewer system in accordance with the "Sewage
and Waste Control Rules and Regulations for the
Metropolitan Disposal System ".
• Water quality in the Mississippi River was fair to medium
during the month of August, 1982 (Exhibit B). All
turbidity, temperature, and chlorine residual values
were in compliance with water quality standards.
Several values in excess of the PH, un- ionized ammonia
and fecal coliform standards were recorded. Dissolved
oxygen at Grey Cloud was slightly below the 5 mg /L
water quality standard in late August when flows were
down to 4,000 cfs. Monthly mean river flow was
approximately 6,200 cfs, somewhat lower than the
historical mean flow of approximately 8,000 cfs.
• During the month of August, 1982, 12,200 wet tons of
sludge were hauled fro_ m dewatering sources to on -site
storage, while 21,310 wet tons were landspread on
farmland. About 1,000 wet tons were transferred to the
composting project. Sludge remaining in storage de-
creased from 25,840 wet tons at the end of July to 15,710
wet tons at the end of August. The sludge inventory
should be further reduced during the coming end of
August. The sludge inventory should be further reduced
during the coming month as crops are harvested,
making more farmland available for sludge application.
During 1982, a total of 6,000 wet tons of sludge have
been composted, compared to an annual requirement
of 9,000 wet tons. It is expected that the initial roll press
cake production will be composted, bringing the total .
requirement of 38,000 wet tons by late 1982.
METROPOLITAf1
Bulk Rate
WAITE !
U.S. Postage
PAID
COrf�1TrRr1OL
Mpls., Minn.
COI I r II I II %fioI t1 1
Permit No. 10
Twin Cities Area .
550 METROfOUARE BLDG..
7TH & ROBERT /TREET/
/AinT PAUL mn 55101 I
612 222.8423 !
Salisbury Adams
Chairman - -
George W. Lusher
Chief Administrator
i
October -
November, 1982
SOLID WASTE
Enclosed herewith is a letter to the Editor at the Star and Tribune
as it was sent to the paper but not as they printed it. Also
enclosed is a booklet by Frederich S. Gram containing a chapter 410
starting on page 32 about sewage and solid waste. There is enclosed
also a copy of Metro Waste .Control .Commission's paper, The Outfall,
which contains interesting information about the operation of that
commission.
All of this is sent youto encourage your support for the Metro Waste
Control Commission to handle solid waste.
Presently much of the costs of pick up and disposal of solid wastes
are uncontrolled, unregulated, and unreported." Some of the pick up
charges have doubled in'the last five years. There is much to question
about the present system of handling solid waste.
Your support is vitally needed.
If you have any comments, or need further information, please contact
the writer or contact Grant Merritt at 339 -4546 or at 4444 I. D. S.
Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402.
Yours truly,
Milton C. Honsey
537 -5871
8021 6011 Ave. N.
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Enclosures
November 10, 1982
SOLID WASTE - A METRO PROBLEM
Letter to the Editor,
After many years of effort by many people and groups, the Legislature in
1969 passed the Metropolitan Sewer Bill and set up the Metropolitan Sewer
Board. The Board after much discussion and research asked and it was
granted that its name be changed to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
This was asked for to allow the Commission to proceed with development of a
system to process solid waste so that after removing metals and other usable
materials the balance would be converted into a fuel to be used for heat
and energy.
A system called pyrolosis to do.just that was developed to produce
pelletized activated carbon. While there were undoubtedly bugs in the
system it was an excellent start in the right direction and had tentative
approval in several areas. The system called for waste in the Metro area
to be picked up as it is now by private haulers and to be delivered to
various of the 14 sewer plants where the means for processing were provided
and, if necessary, where means were provided for compaction and haulage to
processing sites. The system was to financed by 75% Federal Money and 15%
State Money and 10% user fees.
Considerable opposition by the counties, the Phoenix Corporation, Horner
Waldorf, the City of St. Paul and others dete'red the program while they
were getting nowhere themselves: Certainly they lacked the engineering
expertise and the advantageous location of the Metro Waste Control
Commission plants.
It was hoped that with the satisfactory development of a pyrolosis system
it could also lead to the means for handling hazardous waste. However, in
a total lack of vision or for other reasons the Metropolitan Council
turned the plan down, rather opting to irritate all sections of the Metro
Area by continuing their short sighted unsatisfactory plans for landfills.
I understand that a plant for solid waste use much as described above is
being built presently in Red Wing, Minnesota.
Sincerely,
Milton C. Honsey
Former Chairman of the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
4
tF
r
titive today, e
p. y, will produce cheaper electricity than coal
Council and chairman of the committee dealing with this
by 1990, i
i
problem. Kegler complained at the time of the action that
p g p
•
•.
10.,.,' Sewage 8L S011d Waste
the Commission had not kept him informed about its plans.
But during the years of studies, full reports had been filed
in voluminous detail, and had been read by many non-
Our management '
(or lack of it) of wastes and t
members of the Council who were interested and able to
,solid
sewage can only be described as a scandal. And the scan-
read. Kegler has refused to discuss the matter with re-
�!;` -
dal is posted unmistakably to the door of the Metropolitan
porters. His response to reporters seeking interviews is
�
Council, with some fallout to the doors of various civic and
a bang of the telephone.
:'public agencies,
The effect of the Kegler-initiated policy has been to
g p Y
The scandal, almost totally ignored b the d it
Y a Y
require continued use of eight million gallons of fuel oil or
•
first surfaced in mid -1976 when the Metropolitan ' 1�
its coal equivalent each year to process the sewage at the
,,,,'Press,
'Council ordered an end to plans of the Metropolitan
pig's Eye plant, and"to cause the loss of substantial
Control Commission to build a sewage processing plant
amounts of plant nutrients which the vetoed process, called
:. ;.which would end river pollution, meet federal waste con-
trol pollution standards and be, ener
p energy. sufficient: The.
was a reversal by the Council of its formal approval in
Commission had spent $5.million on the ,engineezu�g of_.:.�:__
''
May, 1974. To give the appearance of technical backing
. _: - "-
project, "
this ro ect and had scheduled it to .come into operation in .:
for its reversal, the Council commissioned a 90 -day study
. -
late 1977.. The plan was based'on several years,of studies' -
by a consulting team which asserted that the five -year
involving engineers and other specialists covering all,
engineering work done for the Commission•was invalid.
°
r. areas of the problem. ' It would,. according to these spe=
The confrontation also brought out the fact that in
cialists, have generated the fuel needed to. operate the ,'
addition to duplicating —and competing with —the engi-
system, and provided valuable by- products including Agri -} �
veering work procured by the Commission, the Council
.' 'cultural nutrients and chemicals.
was also duplicating the Commission's staff work. One of
The Metropolitan Council vetoed the 'plan, and
the documents in the confrontation is an August, 1975
directed the Commission to continue burning fossil fuel to'
opinion: by Council staff members Karl Burandt, Gene,
-process, the sewage, drastically limiting recovery, of the
Franchett, Sheila O'Connell and Ray Thon contradicting
:.: biomass values in the sewage., One result of this last, -..`< ."
the evaluations of the Commission staff and engineers by
,: ,
minute action of the Metropolitan CounciT`was that, in early: `
several hundred percentage points, and putting in a plug
1978 the Commission was in violation; of federal pollution
for a private agency competing for the solid wastes in the
;,regulations. Though the responsibility I rested with the
area for use as fuel.
;Council, the Commission was held responsible, and the
That private agency is the Phoenix Corporation,._
which has a monopoly contract with the City of Minneapolis
,,,...Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,' apparentry,unaware '.
of the facts in the case, attempted to levy a fine against
and had at that time a similar contract with the City of St.
the Commission.
Paul for the solid wastes generated in the area.. At the i '
The author of this scandal is University of Minnesota
time, Phoenix was negotiating with the Hoerner Waldorf
,
vice president Stanley Kegler, who was a member of the
Corporation to provide garbage to fuel a steam plant at its-''
Midway factory. This never developed, and the solid
32
33
wastes are still going into landfills controlled by Phoenix.
At the time the Commission's plans for a pyrolysis
plant were maturing, however, the Hoerner Waldorf pro-
ject was very much alive, and since the pyrolysis project
would require some solid waste, there was strong compe-
tition for this prospective fuel. Lined up against the use of
this fuel for public purposes were, in addition to Phoenix
and the Metropolitan Council: The Citizens League, the
.St. Paul City Council, the St. Paul Area Chamber of Com-
merce, the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. The
most effective lobbyist at the Council's hearings was St.
Paul City Councilman David Hozza (also a University of
Minnesota staff member), who demanded that the pyrolysis
project be forbidden unless the Commission could obtain
firm contracts for solid waste to fuel the project. This was
another way of saying that Phoenix must be given the veto
power over this public project.
During the. course of this controversy; Hozza gave -an
interview to the Minneapolis STAR in which he indicated
that a similar pyrolysis system in Baltimore did not work.
Not true, Baltimore's director of public works, Francis
W. Kuchta, said later: "The pyrolysis system has
worked." This reporter had made concentrated efforts to
get in touch with Hozza, without success.
The net result of the success of lobbying efforts to
reserve the solid wastes produced in the metropolitan
area for the garbage monopoly is that they continue to be
trucked to garbage dumps, at enormous costs of fuel, man-
hours and vehicle maintenance.
Although nobody on or off the Metropolitan Council
has questioned the validity or responsibility of the Council
in canceling a five - million - dollar engineering commitment
by a constituent agency — made with the assent of the
Council — there is in fact some question as to its legality.
The legislature assigned to the Waste Control Commission
responsibility for and authority over disposition of sewage
and solid wastes. The Metropolitan Council's function,
under the law, is to establish guidelines for the constituent
34
agencies. There is nothing in the law authorizing the
Council to interpose its authority over the functions as-
signed to the constituent agencies. Indeed, the idea of two
authorities performing the same public functions in. compe-
tition with each other would surely have been rejected out
of hand by the legislators if it had ever come up. Yet that
is what we have had.
The law says: "The development program prepared
by the Commission (in this case, the Waste Control Com-
mission) shall be submitted to the Council for review and
approval or,disapproval. The Council shall complete its
review within 90 days ... If it determines that the pro-
gram is inconsistent with the policy plan, it shall disap-
prove it and return it to the submitting commission.. .
Within two years of the approval of its first development
program by the Council and at least biennially thereafter
each Commission ... shall submit the program to the
Council for its review and approval or disapproval ... "
This procedure was followed by the Waste Control
Commission, which submitted detailed reports during the
progress of the engineering study, beginning in December,
1971, when the study began. This was followed by a report
in October, 1972, on a $400, 000 engineering study'of the
feasibility of pyrolysis for processing sewage wastes.
Then came a six - volume engineering report and recom-
mendation in March, 1974. In May of that year the
Metropolitan Council formally approved this report and
authorized the Commission to proceed with the pyrolysis
project. Although periodic reports were made thereafter,
it was not until the plans were all ready to be executed
that the Council voted them down. The Commission had
spent $4, 083, 000 on the engineering work.
The Metropolitan Council's apparent policy of reserv-
ing to the "private sector" control over solid wastes has
some implications that are not covered in the law, which
assigns responsibility for solid wastes to the Waste Con-
trol Commission. The "private sector" in the matterunder
review here had no intention of investing private funds in
.I
35
the processing of solid wastes. Its intention was to use
public financing, from the St. Paul Port Authority. This,
however, is the least of the problem. i
The optimum recovery of salvageable, energy -
valuable materials from solid wastes can only be developed
by a public agency. The limitations imposed by Kegler and
the Metropolitan Council mean that uncounted tons of
metals, paper, plastics and other materials are being
lost as long as this policy goes on. These materials are,
of course, part of the energy problem, as well as of the
environmental problem. The paralysis of the metropolitan
area in converting sewage and solid waste to energy is the
product of the Metropolitan Council and its "guidelines. "
Solid waste still goes into landfills. The gas, oil, char,
and fertilizer in sewage still gets burned up at enormous
cost in fossil fuel. Nearly five million dollars in engineer-
ing to solve the problem has been lost. One of the authors
of this policy, the Citizens League, said in August, 1975:
"The Twin Cities is in an excellent position to treat refuse
as a resource."
But the Citizens League was part of the campaign to
frustrate such a policy. The Commission's engineers esti-
mated that the relatively small amount of 'waste needed to
power the pyrolysis system would produce nearly a million
dollars annually in resource recovery:
* Ferrous metals, 7960 tons, $636, 000.
* Aluminum, 384 tons, $154, 000.
* Other metal, 250 tons, $ 95, 000.
* Plastics, paper and other materials, not estimated.
These resources are now going to dumps in the area.
And it costs money, motor fuel, truck wear and tear, and
man -hours to continue filling up these dumps. Figures
compiled for the St. Paul City Council in 1977 indicate that
the transportation of St. Paul's solid wastes alone to the
Pine Bend landfill consumes about 1.5 million gallons of
motor fuel annually.
Should the Waste Control Commission have to adopt
the Council's recommendation of turning to coal instead of
36
oil at the Pig's Eye plant, this would involve two serious
problems. Burning 140 tons of coal a day at this location
would create enormous pollution problems, with acid rains
on much of the city.. And it would require a four -car coal
train every day.
A postscript to this report which may or may not be i
pertinent: when the Waste Control Commission was cited
by the Environmental Protection Agency for the pollution
that resulted from the action of the Metropolitan Council,
the. St. Paul daily press had a field day of criticism of the.
Commission. The DISPATCH refused to print correspon-
dence pointing out that, .but for the Council's action, the
Commissionwould have had its anti pollution controls in
operation at the time of the EPA citation.
Meanwhile., the Waste Control Commission is ,con-
tinuing its' studies and experiments with the use of sewage
by- products as agricultural. nutrients. While the Metropoli
tan Council appears to have stopped one field of inquiry -,
the conversion of by- products of the pyrolysis process to
fertilizer —a number of other studies are going forward..; '
Sewage has been used on.corn fields, with results as good-.
-- as or- better- than- cammercial, petroleum -based fertilizer,
No adverse effects have been reported from pathogenic
organisms or metal, chemical, and other pollutants.
The metropolitan area produces 1.6 million tons of
solid waste per year, according to the Metropolitan Coun-
cil. , This waste is generally 80 percent combustible, but >.
some of the combustible materials are also valuable as
salvage. The Minnesota Energy Agency estimates the solid
waste has an energy potential of 1, 600 million BTUs per
hour, and that this could increase to 2, 500 million by 1990..
The current solid waste production could sustain 100 mega
i watts of electrical production, the agency 'estimates.,'
Progress (if any) toward converting this energy
potential has been slow. Projects in Hennepin County and
at the University of Minnesota have been discussed, but
not developed.
37
' EDIIdA
CHO4ICAL - ^_DVISORY CCi'TMITTEE
- AGE DA -
Wednesday, January, 19, 1903
7:30 a.m.
1. Report on Community Task Force (now meeting) by those Advisory
Committee members now attending: Judi Heidkamp, Sandi Dunn, I•'icki
Gamer. 5 minutes
2. Don Brundage retort. 5 - 10 minutes
3. Introduction of any newcomers; fields of endeavors; application
to interests of this committee. 3 minutes
1 +. Timely drug articles;, new drugs; interactions, reac tic ns of drugs of
recent note. 15 minutes
a. ;that you would like to see written about in IJ'dina Dru,; . wareness,
b. Bring anything that we can place in either of two library files.
(Edina Community Library has drawer files as well as the
Dortfolio on i,Iarihuana which is in a separate location.)
5. Pastor Gerald Eisele report on '5th step's training by Chanhassen
Treatment Center for clergy. 2 minutes
6. my Youth Representative who wishes to speak.
7. r':i'AT IS m'iIS :'1D1rl i : :�'± rC :. :` ?ITTL : "� ! Y ^U SEE IT?
15 rdinutes
?HAT COULD IT II; If you would care to write down
and give Tour ideas in a ore- ^:inute repdr d 0 ge're "c and then -;gassed
on to the Community Task- Force, T would appreciate it. `!'here will
be some recommendations corning out that task force. Some cf tile
y eonle par ticipati g ?eno,a about us and others don't. I would but all
your ideas tot-,ether to anuaint them with us.
Thankyou ,
i
Pat Llona
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1933
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
A Costly Crutch
Squawks about the new federal
budget are already rising from the na-
tion's mayors and governors. They
know, sight unseen, that the biggest
target for spending cuts is bound to be
their aid from Uncle Sam. Even with-
out a program of "New Federalism,"
budget discipline that exempts Social
Security and the Defense Department
translates into drastic reductions in
the programs that feed into state and
local budgets. So the National League
of Cities, for instance, is warning that
its members face a "bleak" financial
outlook. The NLC staff made this pre-
diction in releasing a survey showing
that of 79 cities, 90% would not spend
their own money to make up planned
federal cuts in community and urban
development giants. The city lobby-
ists also note that this is the first re-
cession since the 1940s which has not
been buffered by growth in municipal
employment.
Before we shed too many tears,
however, it's worth noting a point
which the NLC left out. This group
traditionally has been the least skepti-
cal of the seven major state and local
government associations toward the
benefits of federal aid. When it im-
plies, along with so many others, that
federal cutbacks will inevitably force
state and local governments to raise
taxes, it ignores recent studies sug-
gesting that grants from_ Washington
have increased, not reduced, the costs
of state and local government.
In a recent paper circulated by the
Heritage Foundation, for instance,
Clemson University economist Rich-
ard B. McKenzie reports that states
and localities with above average lev-
els of federal support also impose
higher than average tax burdens,
A few years ago, similarly, Dart-
mouth College economist Colin Camp-
bell studied the rising tax burdens in
Vermont, Massachusetts and New
Hampshire. lie found that the first
two states paid higher taxes in part
because they relied much more heav-
ily than New Hampshire on federal
grants in aid. His explanation was
that "units of government are more
efficient when they have to rely on
their own sources of revenue."
There are other ways to account
for this paradox as well. A majority of
federal grants require matching funds
from the lower levels, pushing them
into new spending land sometimes
leaving them holding the bag when
the federal programs expire). The
federal government has used this le-
verage to demand more services from
local governments.
Probably the most important effect
of federal money, though, has been to
wipe out the natural discipline on
spending imposed by competition
among state and local governments.
Before the New Deal, it was the con-
ventional wisdom among states that
too great an increase in public spend-
ing would send business and taxpay-
ers fleeing across the border to lower
taxes. So those who wanted an ex-
panded public sector turned to the
federal government, which collected
taxes everywhere, to provide the
money. But when the manna floated
down from Washington, the local poli-
ticians didn't have to worry whether
they were getting the best use out of
then• budgets. The pervasive belief
that government is wasting money on
an unprecedented scale shows up
clearly in the opinion polls, not to
mention the tax revolt.
An utisung feature of the adminis-
tration's New Federalism is that it
should reduce the size not only of the
federal government but of state and
local governments as well. What this
might mean for the economy can be
seen from comparing-New Hampshire_
to its neighbors. For the last decade,
it has led New England and much of
the entire East Coast in its propor-
tional growth in jobs and population.
This record is still holding up, even in
the face of declining tax burdens, and
dramatic economic turn - arounds, in
neighboring Vermont and Massachu-
setts.
So it doesn't alarm us to hear that
municipal employment is declining or
that state and local spending isn't
swelling to fill the cutbacks in federal
aid. We of course admit there is am-
ple pain in making this transition dur-
ing a recession; the social demands of
the downturn compound the difficulty
of winding down spending; a hard
enough task in good times.
Ultimately, though, the decline in
federal aid will leave behind lean. ef-
ficient and more responsive state and
local governments. The taxpayers will
appreciate it, even if mayors and gov-
ernors don't.