HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.02.89 Special Council Minutes
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
SPECIAL
MAY 2, 1989
1. Mayor Kuchera called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. at Akin Road Elementary
School.
Members Present: Kuchera, Mayer, McKnight, Sprute, Galler.
Members Absent: None.
Also Present: Administrator Thompson.
2. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the County's proposed waste to
energy facility with County officials.
3. County Administrator Lyle Wray gave a brief history of the solid waste issues
in Dakota County and outlined the steps taken and consideration given by the
County in determining the waste to energy project. Project Director Louis
Breimhorst presented the project proposed by Combustion Engineering. Mr. Breimhorst
described the facility, potential sites, operations and outlined the future steps
to be taken by the County. Consultant Steve Schwarz presented the issues
surrounding the disposal of incinerator ash. The meeting was then opened to
audience comment. The following is a brief summary of the discussion.
Emily Rahn:
We are extremely concerned with health issues. We are
totally opposed to incineration. We need to educate the
public.
Robert Harmon:
What can be done to stop the project? Will the County
shut down the $126 million facility if it fails to meet
emissions standards.
Commissioner Harris: The Board will not stop siting until the EIS is completed.
I prefer the University of Minnesota site, but the County
cannot exercise eminent domain over the U. The County has no financial obligation
to keep the plant running so they would shut it down.
Leslie McMurtrey: Lots of problems with Combustion Engineering plants (CE).
How many similar plants are operating in the US by CE?
CE's been sued by Connecticut for misrepresentation. CE does a good job of
selling, but can they perform? The costs are high. I'm opposed to incineration.
We must change our lifestyles to solve this problem. What stage of design is the
plant in now?
Ron Bardmore (CE): CE's never been sued by Connecticut. The plant is in the
preliminary design stage, including types of air pollution
equipment, boilers, turbines, grates, and so on. If there are mistakes, CE, not
the County, pays for them. This plant will be the first of its kind operated in
the US by CE, but it has ties to firms which have operated similar plants in
Europe for 30 years.
Jim Harms:
R. Bardmore:
What happens after the contract expires? (20 years)
The lifespan of the plant is 35 years. Contracts would have
to be renegotiated.
Will we be bringing in garbage from other counties?
Not Identified:
Comm. Harris:
No.
Why doesn't the County ban plastics?
Not Identified:
Comm. Harris: It's not that simple. Companies are not going
their packaging because Dakota County bans it.
will just sell it in another county.
Jim Harms: Thanks Joe Harris and Louis Breimhorst for the courtesy
of returning calls and being open. The County should
pursue alternatives to recycling - specifically composting. Portland, Oregon's
compost plant handles the same amount of garbage at $100 million less. St. Cloud
sells its compost. They produce soil, not potentially toxic ash. If we could
prove composting was viable, would the County pursue it?
to change
They
Comm. Harris:
I would look at it.
Bruce Munstermann:
We are circulating a petition urging the Council to reconsider
composting. I have some the petitions which will be presented
remainder will be presented at the next Council meeting. (Petition
tonight. The
presented.)
Jim Olson:
There are several discrepancies in the EIS scoping document,
specifically with the proximity to housing and the number
of vehicles per day.
L. Breimhorst:
Shelly Cummins:
The 200 trips per day includes garbage trucks in, worker's
cars and ash going out.
The City and County did a poor job in starting recycling
without preparing for market development. There are
health rights associated with incineration. We must
several problems and
change our habits.
Comm. Harris:
Gail Prest:
The Stated charged the WMB and Met Council with market
development for recyclables and they have done a poor job.
How are you going to get rid of the ash? Where is a
permanent yard waste .compost site going to be located?
The County is presently receiving bids. A permanent site
has not been determined.
Lee Stohe:
R. Bardmore:
The scoping document states your burners will have 20%
down time. That seems excessive.
It is actually 15% which is lower than industry standards
for coal fire electrical utilities.
Pat Akin: County and City have been working on this project for several
years and they should be commended for the job they have done.
I don't know of any project that has been this open. I have heard lots of comments
about children and grandchildren, but the City and County officials have children
and grandchildren too. It has been an open and healthy process but we have elected
these people to make these decisions. I feel the County should start with the
incinerator but also pursue composting to pre-sort the waste with rejects being
incinerated.
Angie Parsow:
Comm. Harris:
Where is the ash going? How much will it cost?
Would you hold a referendum on this issue?
I don't know.
Gary Cameron:
Emily Rahn:
Minutes - Council - Special - 5/2/89
4. The Council made the following comments.
Cm. McKnight: I was opposed to City composting because of the location
and I felt the City couldn't afford it. I think the
County facility should be located on the U of M site.
Cm. Mayer: The City looked at composting, but because of a lack of
positive interest, it is now on hold. My concern on
incineration go beyond location. I am totally opposed to it. I would urge the
County to look into composting. The City has asked the legislature to ban plastics
but everyone has to join in on the solid waste problem. People have criticized
the County but they are working in your interest.
Cm. Galler: I would like the County to prepare a document addressing
whether they will meet or exceed the recommendations made
in the "Blueprint for New York State Solid Waste". The County's study showing the
failure of composting plants was done when landfill costs were $5 - $10 per ton.
In the County's market research for compost, did they only look at selling it or
did they consider giving it away? I am against incineration, but I don't think
all the costs have been brought out. What is the projected tip fee? Does it
include ash disposal? Have road improvements been considered? Why have all the
sites been south of County Road 42 when the major roads and generation sources
are north of 42 where there is still lots of open space and industrial areas?
Consultant: The site search was based on criteria established by the
County. Anyone is welcome to review the document.
Comm. Harris:
We did not consider giving away the compost.
L. Breimhorst: The tip_fee will be in the mid $60/ton range, which will
include ash disposal. Road improvements have not been
considered which will probably be placed on ad valorem taxes.
Cm. Sprute: None of the people recommending the site or voting on it
live in the area. Why not move it to the east, closer to
the Commissioner's home. Which sites did you (Commissioner Harris) support?
Why did you support all three sites in your district? I feel the sites weren't
selected up north because of their clout. I am extremely disappointed in the
Commissioner allowing the sites to be located in this district. Farmington is
getting everything... the incinerator, compost site...now probably the ash. We
should not burn but recycle. Burning hurts the environment.
Comm. Harris: I represent the entire district, not just the eastern
part. I supported the three sites because they were selected
based on criteria established beforehand. You have to remember that the first
two sites were not in my district, but the MPCA threw them out. It would be easy
for me to vote against the sites, but that would be a cop out.
Mayor Kuchera: I have deep concerns regarding the location. Why not locate
a site in each district? Also, how are we going to pay for the fire equipment
needed to protect the plant? Is the County going to pay for it? It looks like
we're going to have an incinerator, and I feel it should be located on the U of M
site.
5. MOTION by Galler, second by Sprute to adopt RESOLUTION NO. R28-89 opposing the
Burn Plant and urging the County to pursue composting. APIF, MOTION CARRIED.
6. MOTION by Kuchera, second by Galler to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. APIF, MOTION
CARRIED .
Res~u~~~mitted'
Larry ~pson~~' A::inistrator
Approved
~- ~5 -<6<1