Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
08-06-90 agenda
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 29 Agenda August 6, 1990 Issue Statement• Review of proposal by Randy Johnson for City-County discussions. Background• Randy Johnson has sent a letter to the Mayor and Council regarding communication between the City and the county. The letter apparently stems from differences between the City and the county on a number of policy issues, including light rail transit, funding of detox centers, tax increment financing, Penn- 76th financing, yard waste financing. Commissioner Johnson stated that discussions between the county and the City on a regular basis might help avoid controversy in the future. In addition to the letter, the staff has met with Commissioner Johnson to review these issues. For the most part, it was agreed that on most of these issues there is just a policy difference as opposed to a communications problem. Recommended Motion: Authorize the City Manager to meet periodically with county staff to review ongoing issues. Invite Commissioner Johnson to attend a work session on an as needed basis, but at least once per year. Basis of Recommendation: 1. City supports communications with other governmental bodies. 2. The City currently does meet with legislatures at least once per year. 3. Commissioner Johnson agreed that this proposal would meet the communication needs he has discussed. Alternative Recommendation: Invite Commissioner Johnson to attend formal Council meetings on a quarterly basis. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented for discussion at the administrative meeting on August 6, 1990. Jam s Prosser City anager Respect lly submitted, JDP:ds _., - , R1-IVDY JOHNSON ~,et_ c~ PHONE -' ~ ~ ~ COMM13S10NER ~~~ cN `~ 612-348-3088 :(j~,,,,~~.;{; TDD 348-7708 FAX 348-8701 lNALS'~•< BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 June 26, 1990 ~,~, ; Mr. Jim Prosser City Manager City of R.ichf field 6700 Portland Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Jim: C.::; •„: r.~t,Y Ct' Cier~. - ... ..... _.1.~. Li;;. i1.; _~ t=Ub. tea:.-:~1 ~~ ,} . C-U During the time that I have served as Hennepin County ~` ~? ~' Commissioner, I have tried to meet individually from time-to-time with the various mayors and councilmembers from the city to discuss issues of mutual concern. I think that this has been helpful in seeking to maintain good communications between policy makers at the city and the county. Now I see the need to take some further steps in providing more regular communications channels. For example, during recent months issues involving suburban detoxification services, compost subsidies, and the I-494 corridor study have been discussed by councilmembers and city staff and sometimes voted upon without any advance notice to anyone at the county. I also recognize that from time to time some councilmembers and city staff believe the County Baarci ras acted on issues (e•g., yard waste) without giving sufficient advance notice to the city. To help improve communications, I have two suggestions. First, when city staff makes a specific recommendation that the Council urge the county to take particular action, I would appreciate that appropriate county staff and my office receive as much advance notice as possible. At the county, we very seldom take any final action until an issue has gone through a cycle committee hearings that takes at least one week and usually much longer. For example, the County's decision regarding suburban detoxification services spanned a series of a dozen public meetings and hearings between September 1989 and May 2990. In addition, I have asked my staff to make a special effort to alert PRiN TED ON 100 PERCENT RECYCLED PAPER ' ~~ ..., '' Jim Prosser June 26, 1990 Page Two you to upcoming issues that may have a special effect on the city. Second, I think it would be helpful if you set a time on the City Council agenda on a regular basis where appropriate county staff and I could make a brief presentation and try to answer questions and exchange views on current and upcoming issues that we think may be of particular concern to the city. I suggest that we try to do this about every three months for about 20 minutes or so. I have asked Judy Larson from my staff to contact you directly to discuss your interest in pursuing this effort at greater communication. I suggest that our first city-county discussion session might include the issues of suburban detoxification, the future of recycling, and light rail transit. I am sure you can think of many additional important and interesting issues. Thank you for your consideration. Ve r ly yours, -.~ 1 ~ ~. Ra7idy Johns Commissione RJspw:170 cc: Mayor Steve Quam Councilmembers CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 28 Agenda August 6, 1990 Issue Statement• Discussion by Public Safety on Richfield's siren warning system improvement program. Background• Richfield currently has 18 warning sirens (Exhibit A) located at various locations throughout the City. Since 1985, these sirens have been activated by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Emergency Operations Center during times of severe weather or other pending disasters. The city pays to maintain the tone activators at a cost of 530.00/unit per month. Annually this .extends to a cost of $6,480. In addition, should a siren be struck by lightning, the city pays for the repair. For example, in 1989 a siren was struck by lightning and the repair bill was 51,833.00. In addition, the city replaced a burned out siren in 1989 at a cost of 58,226.00. The annual average maintenance of the sirens is over 512,000. Staff has reviewed the possibility of reducing the number of sirens in order to reduce maintenance cost. Public Safety is proposing a four-phase project to reduce the eighteen units to seven units over the next two years (Exhibit A). PHASE I Since three sirens' coverage presently lies entirely within a 125db siren's coverage, disconnect siren #'s 6, 12, and 13. Replace siren #16 (110db) at 76th Street between Newton and Oliver Avenues with siren #9 (125db) from 73rd Street and Vincent Avenue. Cost to replace is estimated at 52,000. As a result of this replacement, siren #'s 8, 10, 11, and 16 could be disconnected. Phase I would move one siren and disconnect sirens 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 16 (a total of 7 sirens). Total cost approximately 52,000. This phase would be completed in 1990. PHASE II Replace siren #3 (Nicollet Park) with a larger 125db siren. Approximate cost of a new 125db siren is $9,000. However, we have a 125 siren case that needs a new 15 h.p. motor that Electric Systems of Anoka will refurbish for $3,500, giving us basically a new unit at a fraction of the cost of new. As a result of this replacement, siren #'s 2, 3, and 4 could be disconnected. This phase would be completed in 1990. PHASE III Replace siren #5 with a larger 125db siren. Approximate cost of a new 125db siren is $9-,000. As a result of this replacement, siren #'s 5, 14, and 18 could be disconnected. This phase would be completed in 1991. PHASE IV Removing a siren, pole, and tone activator costs approximately $1,000. The 13 disconnected sirens could be offered to Hennepin County Parks, as there is an indication they may soon be looking at erecting 110db sirens in all of their parks. We could offer each siren, pole, and tone activator for $500, and require the buyer to remove the siren, pole, and tone activator from its present site, which would save the city the removal costs. This phase would be done as soon as practical, and there is no cost factor involved from our standpoint. Siren #1, located at 64th Street between Upton and Vincent Avenues, will be left as is to .ensure adequate coverage in the city's northwest corner. Minneapolis plans to replace a 110db siren with a 125db which should relieve the need for siren #1. This consideration could come due to our new 125db siren at 6316 First Avenue., which would provide a large coverage area to Minneapolis residents north of 62nd Street and Nicollet Avenue. Should Minneapolis erect such a siren, we could then disconnect siren #1. Public Safety has budgeted for this project in 1990 and is proposing sufficient dollars in 1991 to complete the project. The placement and decibel levels of the seven will give us the same coverage as the 18 and will reduce our maintenance costs over the years. Recommendation• Council and staff need to discuss this project as some residents may feel they would be losing their siren. An educational article in Your City/Your Schools and Richfield Sun Current will explain what is happening. Alternative Recommendation: 1. Delay project. 2. Do nothing, leave sirens as they are. Discussion/Decision Mode: Discussion and provide staff direction on how to proceed. City y submitted, Prosser JDP:lmv 4rrr~D~vr V V1 1 I l i l l l O~V O~vp~Vp~ CaJ 1a: C7 O~ O~ N 1a O~Z+ =502 i >L7Lab>O Zr*tm~ Zm crilo~~oo~ -~rmmn~r.~ ~.mmmmrn a-IZZOZz m~ r z~ E C z a o r*~ o -n c < c» ZI -~{ f*1 1'*1 D -~ -1 0 N C $ Z ~` Z o ,~*, > a ~ O Z O S O 3 < 0 0 ~-, ar z 2 m Z a -/ O '0 O Ln r+1 o . N a rn Z r 0 n a N 0 Z 2 O z c 3 G7 m a ---r--~rrrr ti to N N N rJ r V-VIW~~AUto / 1 ~ i' ~ a ~ +~-~ r r r r r r --~ ~p ~y V p~ 1J1 JS W N 1-+ m V 0~1.11ACal.N1-+o" 1 F 1 1' 1! 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 f 1 t O~ V V O~ O~ O~ V V V V V ~J V p~ p~ p~ a a1 N' A O~ O~ v A tr O~ ~ t+i O~ IV 0 0~ N Cd a A ~.sxz.z.:..~_~+c_czs~ca.ax > N. N Vf R` N C~ f?' N 1/9 N > LA C7 17 71 ' N 2 -1 -1 -~ -1 m ~ -~ -i z f*t m o rr Za -i oaa~va-,rr`,aao-~-,aaaz mmrnOrn~-carom ~~.-ycnam NR1mf*7~ mm z--+mRt ~Et*1 mr-+1 rr Rt d-i-~1-1R1rnOO-1 -1n7m m> Rt-1 iaa~o~a~Zr>-iaa~2za<-'m zmmz>nr*~ zz~rr r*~arn av-+-+vzz aovoo~+>z<~ t aE~ Or-+>< a--1--+<Cm ~ rnrr•nm>. c7<m<~-~zZrnr•nzrn zamm«amZ--raZ Z Cm C-12zmR1C7ZC2m fi~R~CLnf*1_ r*+,z zzocr*-c~3a mo Drz*~oIC*1Z>mNZ2m~mr -C-~ o~ m-~ia ~cac-"-ic~~ `-c~+o 2 0 Z m C --~> > rn 0 3 S Z >z r*Ir zz an z vo In3 mrc+rn mo 0 ~a° ~N cc~ rz~na a+ n z c c In < ~ _ rn m a --1 -+ m ~ c m r r r r r r r r r --- r l-• r --. r~ r r r N ~+ N r --~ r r r N r-• N r r-. r r r r o~lowoooooaovlooooo0 u® u - \ u ~ ' ~ ~~ ~. "/ _ _ i ~ r O \ ~ ~ ~ pp~ u O ~ GZ Q / o® / W / ~` ~~-~ ~ ' i y®! ~ ~u ? ~ ~ L--- `" . ~ ~ ~ .~. m 1'7 X t-r H ...1 N •~ 1 7 N H i~ n rn ~'t 2 --+ m r" r o -~ o Z Z 0 N r~ a r+t z z c m ~V n~^^ V V X ~ 2 , CA --~ D CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No.2~ Agenda August 6, 1990 Issue Statement• Presentation of•the 1989 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background• The City's•1989 financial audit has been completed by the firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. Data on year-end 1989 has previously been presented to the City Council in April as prescribed by the City Charter. This presentation by the Auditors is meant to be an informal discussion of the 1989 year-end report. Formal receipt of the Financial Report will be scheduled for August 13, 1990. Recommended Motion: No formal action is being recommended at this time. Basis of Recommendation: 1. The financial audit and formal report of the 1989 fiscal year has been completed. 2. Presentation of the report at a Study Session provides an opportunity for more in-depth discussion of the report. Alternative Recommendation: The Study Session discussion of this item could be omitted and presented at a regular City Council meeting. Discussion/Decision Mode: Consideration of this item at the will expedite the formal receipt a future City Council meeting. August 6, 1990 Study Session of the 1989 Financial Report at Re a ully submitted, Jam D. Prosser Cit anager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session No. 26 Agenda August 6, 1990 Issue Statement: Consideration of a proposal to participate in an environmental cities group. Background• Representatives from St. Paul, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale and Eagan have initiated an effort to cooperatively address a number of environmental issues. The issues include water quality, air quality and solid waste. The cities conducted an initial meeting to discuss the feasibility of working together to jointly develop ordinances regulating phosphorus in household and chemical laundry detergents, restricting the use of lawn care chemicals and prohibiting the use of small incinerators. The group was formed as a mechanism to help cities increase their impact on environmental initiatives. Participation in the group would be non-binding, that is, cities would not be required to adopt various ordinances or controls suggested or discussed by the group. Recommended Motion: Authorize participation in the effort. Basis of Recommendation: 1. Review of these environmental issue provide the City with the benefit of communities that could not normally alone. 2. Participation is non-binding. s with other cities would analysis by other be undertaken by the City 3. The environmental issues addressed by this effort are of concern to the City of Richfield. Alternative Recommendation: The City could decide not to participate in this effort. We could nevertheless review and adopt ordinances prepared by the group. Discussion/Decision Mode: This matter will be presented at the workshop meeting of August 6. JDP:tlm Respectfully Submitted, Jams Prosser City anager AGENDA JULY 12, 1990 4:OO p.m. ROOM 316, SAINT PAUL CITY HALL 1) DISCUSSION OF PURPOSE OR MISSION OF ORGANIZATION 2) DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR CITIES TO WORK ON * Phosphorous in detergents * .Lawn care chemicals * Restricting the use of small incinerators 3) DISCUSSION OF STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION * Title of organization * Structure of .organization * Determination of member cities * Meeting schedule * Meeting locations * Manner of participation by member cities (see sample resolution) * Communication process 4) Other Business PHOSPHOROUS CONTENT IN VARIOUS FERTILIZERS AVAILABLE AT RETAIL Target Midway, 1300 University Ave. W, St. Paul July 12, 1990 Available Phospherous Product Name ------------ (P205) -------------- Green Sweep Weed & Feed 0% Green Sweep Lawn Food (Liquid) -. 3% Hyponex Premium Lawn Fertilizer 3% Ortho Systematic Rose & Flower Care 12% Ortho Bone Meal 12% Ortho Flower Garden Food 8% Ortho Blood Meal 0% Ortho Rose Food 12% Peters Professional Soluble Plant Food 21 % Preen and Green Weed Preventor and Fertilizer 17% .Rapid Grow Bloom Builder 24% Rapid Grow Plant Food 19% Schultz Instant Liquid Plant Food 15% Scotts Easy Care Liquid Lawn Fertilizer 2% Sterns Miracid Soil Acidifier 10% Sterns Miracle Grow 30% Sterns Miracle Grow 20-20-20 20% Sterns Miracle Grow for Roses 18% Sterns Miracle Grow for Tamatos 18% Sterns Miracle Grow Lawn Food 6°/a Sterns Patio Plant Food 20% Sterns Plant Food 30% Council File ,~ Ordinance ,~ Green Sheet ~ ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA L 3 1 i i 7 3 a LO L1 L2 L3 l4 Ls L6 L' tb l9 >.0 ~1 >.2 ?3 '4 ~5 ?6 ~~ ~g '9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ~r ~1 32 33 E4 Presented By Referred To Committee: Date An ordinance concerning fertilizers used for lawn care requiring licensing of some users of these chemicals and placing restrictions on their use. THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1 A new section of the City Legislative Code is hereby enacted to read as follows: Chapter LAWN CARE FERTILIZERS Section .01. Legislative purpose. The misuse of fertilizers poses a serious environmental threat to people living and working in the City and contributes to the rising costs to City taxpayers for storm water treatment. This ordinance will reduce that threat. Licensing requirements will help ensure that personnel trained in proper application methods will be applying the fertilizers. The licence requirements will also help ensure that fertilizers are only used when their use is appropriate. Limitations on the amount of phosphorous allowed in fertilizers will help reduce the amount of phosphorous runoff into the water systems. Other requirements are designed to further reduce tl~e threat of misuse and the subsequent run-off and non-point source pollution that results from misuse. Section .02. Legislative findings. The City Council finds that lawn care chemicals are used throughout the City and is troubled by the environmental and public health threats excessive use and misuse of these chemicals may pose to those people living and working within the City. The Council finds that excessive use of fertilizers increases the problems of runoff and non-point source pollution, polluting our water sources and increasing the costs to the City tax payers for storm water treatment now required by federal law. The Council finds that fertilizer application onto impervious surfaces such as parking lots, side walks, or rock formations, or while the ground is frozen, results in increased run-off. Run- off is also increased when fertilizers are applied too close to a body of water. The Council further finds that one of the primary causes of fertilizer misuse is a lack of knowledge of each property's individual soil needs. The vast majority of lawns in the City contain adequate levels of phosphorous, and adding additional .phosphorous only increases the potential for harmful runoff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3U 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 r Ss 54 55 Section .03. Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms and ;phrases shall have the meanings as defined in this section: (a) "Commissioner" means the State of Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture. (c) "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients that is used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have value promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetable manures that are not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by rule by the Commissioner. (d) "Impervious surface" means a surface incapable of being penetrated by water, or a surface through which water penetrates slowly ,enough so as to appear impervious. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, parking lots, drive ways, side walks, and rock formations. (e) "Manipulated" means fertilizers that are manufactured, blended, or mixed, or animal or vegetable manures that have been treated in any manner, including mechanical drying, grinding, pelleting, and other means, or by adding other chemicals or substances. (f) "Plant regulator" means a substance or mixture of substances intended through physiological action to accelerate or retard the rate of growth or rate. of maturation of a plant, or to otherwise alter the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or the produce of the plants. Plant regulator does not include substances to the extent that they are intended as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant inoculant or soil amendments. Sec 04 Prohibition against sale and application of lawn fertilizer -with high phosphorous con ent. No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall sell or convey for sale at retail, or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail, or apply within the City, any liquid fertilizer which contains more than .5% by weight of phosphate as expressed as P205, or granular fertilizer which contains more than 3% by weight of phosphate expressed as P205, unless a single application is less than or equal to .10 pounds of phosphate expressed as P205 per 1000 square feet. Annual application amounts shall not exceed .5 pounds of phosphate expressed as P205 per 1000 square feet of lawn area. Annual application amount shall not exceed .5 pounds of phosphorus per 1000 square feet of lawn area. Section .05. License required. No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall engage in the business of commercial lawn fertilizer applicator within the City unless a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator license has been obtained from the City Council as provided herein. (a) License a.~plication procedure. Applications for a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator license for a calendar year shall be submitted to the City Council at least 30 days prior to the initial lawn fertilizer application each year within the City. The application shall consist of the following: 1) Application form. Application forms shall be provided by the City and shall include the following information: a. Name, address and telephone number of applicant and any individuals authorized to represent the applicant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2, 3v 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 5" b. Description of lawn fertilizer formula proposed to be applied on lawns within the City. c. A time schedule for application of lawn fertilizer and identification of weather conditions acceptable for lawn fertilizer application. 2) Fertilizer sample. A sample of lawn fertilizer shall be submitted to the City along with the initial application for a license, and thereafter, at least 30 days before fertilizer composition changes are implemented. A sample submittal can be replaced by a chemical analysis certified by an independent testing laboratory. 3) License fee. The license fee shall be as designated, from time to time, by City Council resolution to cover administrative costs of the ordinance. The license fee shall not be prorated. 4) Performance bond. A bond in the amount of $1000 shall be submitted with the application form. The bond shall be conditioned upon compliance with the City's regulations. Actions to collect bond proceeds shall not prevent the City from filing criminal complaints for ordinance violations. (b) Condition of license. Commercial lawn fertilizer applicator licenses shall be issued subject to the following conditions which shall be specified on the license form: 1) Random sampling. Commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall permit the City to sample any commercial lawn fertilizer application to be applied within the City at any time after issuance of the initial license. 2) Possession of license. The commercial lawn fertilizer application license or a copy thereof shall be in the possession of any party employed by the commercial lawn fertilizer applicator when making lawn fertilizer applications within the City. 3) Mate regulations. Licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Fertilizer and Soil Conditioner Law as contained in Minnesota Statutes sections 17.711 through and including 17.729 and amendments thereto. (c) License expiration. Licenses shall expire December 31 of each calendar year. Sec..06. Restrictions as to time of application. No person, firm, or corporation shall apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen, or between November 1 and May 1 of the succeeding year. Sec..07. Impervious surfaces. No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall apply fertilizer in any,form to impervious surfaces, or to the areas within drainage ditches and waterways. Sec..08. Buffer zone. No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall apply fertilizer in any form within 10 feet of any wetland or water resource. 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 Sec..09. Prohibition against dual fertilizer and pesticide sale and application No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall apply, sell or convey for sale at retail, or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail within the City, lawn fertilizer which contains pesticides, fungicides or rodenticides, as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), United States Code, title 7, Sections 136 to 136y, and regulations under Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, subchapter E, parts 150 to 180, and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18B.01. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: By: pproved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By' Adopted by Council: Date ~ ~'~` '~~ CITY OF` SAINT PAUL C~c~~ ~' ~~,.-~:. OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL BOB LONG Cotmcilmember June 30, 1990 Dear Fri d, S ~ ~ As we discussed recently, officials from over 20 Minnesota Cities have expressed an interest in working together on a number of i „jai o..~.; r----~~rt-ai initiatives. The city officials that originally expressed an interest in such a cooperative effort are from~St. Pau1,~Minneapolis,,~5t. Louis Park,~Golden Valley, iShoreview, ~tobbinsdale, and~Eagan. At the League of Minnesota Cities recent conference, other city officials expressed an interest in becoming involved. These officials are from ~ Alexandria,~Arden Hil1s,.Coon Rapids,~Cottage Grove,~Crystal, ~Duluth,,Falcon Heights, ~iastings, Mankato, .Maplewood, .Minnetonka, rNorth St. Paul, ~ted Wing, .Shakopee, and .Winona. No official title has been given to this informal group of cities; we will discuss possible titles at an upcoming meeting. The original members have expressed an interest in working jointly on a number of possible local ordinances in the areas of water quality, air quality, and solid waste. Specifically, they have discussed ordinances~anning phosphorous in household and commercial .laundry detergents,~estricting the use of lawn care chemicals, and.~ax~ohibiting the use of certain small incinerators. Drafts and fact sheets of some for some of these possible ordinances are attached for you to review. There has been research done on all of these subjects, and further background information is available upon request. This group was formed as a way to help cities have greater impact understanding that a local environmental initiative will have a more significant impact, and less chance of state preemption, if it is passed by a grPatAr numhar of r_7{-tPS. The discussions as to the form this group will take are still in the informal stages. Our visio is of a workin roup dedicated to state wide environmental activism. The decisions o is group wou cl reacTi wou a non-binding, but we would like members that are highly interested in passing environmental reforms. Along with the draft ordinances and fact sheets, we have attached a copy of man agenda for the u coming organizational meeting. The meeting will be used to formalize an organizational name, ecide on the organization's structure, devise some type of meeting CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-4473 Sa46 Printed on Recycled Paper schedule, and bring up potential future topics. The meeting will be held at on July 12 at 4:00 p.m. in_Room 316, St. Paul City Hall. It is very i 'ties interested in participat~na in this organization attend t is meetina. If you have any questions about the meeting, or are unable to attend but are interested in adding your thoughts to the discussion, please contact Bob Long's office at (612)298-4473. Thank ou very Bob ng Councilmembe Saint Paul much, Joan Campbell Councilmember Minneapolis '4zcilmember den Valley William Blo Councilmemb Robbinsdale Allen Friedman Councilmember Ma Eagan SAMPLE RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SAINT PAUL TO JOIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL CITIES GROUP WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul recognizes its leadership role in protecting the environment of those people living and working within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has become frustrated with the length of time it takes the federal and state governments to act on many pressing environmental concerns; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that there is a need for governmental bodies to act quickly on many of the environmental problems facing them; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that local environmental initiatives often have a more immediate impact on the .environment than those initiatives passed at higher levels of government; and WHEREAS, the City understands that there is a need by business, other governmental bodies, and the public for uniform regulations across the state; and WHEREAS, the City believes that one way to obtain this type of uniform regulation is to work closely with other cities in such a way as to coordinate the environmental legislation passed in these cities; and WHEREAS, the City also believes that this type of inter-city cooperation may act to stimulate state environmental legislation dealing with the topics addressed by the cities and in a form acceptable to the cities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Saint Paul authorizes the City to join an environmental cities group, to participate in its decision making processes, and to share information with other group members; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council understands that, although the decisions of the group are not binding to the City, the City has a commitment to participate actively in the activities of the group to the fullest extent possible. ~' Council File # Ordinance ,1•` Green Sheet # ORDINANCE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date An ordinance regarding the level of phosphate content in detergents sold in the City of Saint Paui. .0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .S 9 '0 ;1 2 '3 ;4 5 6 .7 '8 9 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 p i 3 The City Council of Saint Paul is concerned about the effects of phosphates in the water systems that service the Saint Paul community. Phosphates, such as phosphorous, when introduced into water systems, are a cause of unnaturally accelerated. eutrophication. Eutrophication is a process in which the organic and mineral nutrients in a water system become overly abundant, causing excessive algae growth. This algae growth, and the subsequent decomposition of the algae, removes oxygen from the water, effectively killing all other life forms in the water system. There already exist in many cities and states legislation either restricting or limiting the level of phosphate content in detergents. These include Minnesota, Chicago, Illinois and the states of Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina,. Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the corresponding agencies of many of these states, has restricted since January 1, 1971 phosphate content in most detergents designed for home use to 0.5% by weight. The Ciry Council also finds that detergent manufacturers are already producing detergents, both solid and liquid, that contain no phosphates. Many of these detergents are currently being distributed in Saint Paul; others are being distributed in areas, like Chicago, where more stringent phosphate bans are in place. Now, Therefore, The Council of the City of Saint Paul Does Ordain: Section 1. Section .01. Phosphorous prohibited. No person, firm or corporation shall offer for sale, sell, or give, in the City of Saint Paul, any synthetic detergent or detergent, whether in the form of crystals, powder, flakes, bars, liquids, sprays, or any other form containing any phosphorous expressed as elemental phosphorous. This shall include, but is not limited to, synthetic detergents or detergents manufactured for machine dishwashers, dairy equipment, beverage equipment, food processing equipment and industrial cleaning equipment. Section .02. Labelling requirements. Containers, wrappers, or other packaging of synthetic detergents or detergents shall be clearly labeled with respect to its polyphosphate builder or phosphorus ingredient content clearly and legibly set forth thereon in terms of percentage of phosphorus by weight, expressed as elemental phosphorus per container, wrapper or other packaging thereof, as well as grams of phosphorus, expressed as elemental phosphorus, per recommended use level. Section 4. This ordinance and the provisions contained therein shall take effect and be in force 90 days after its passage, approval and publication. Section 3. This ordinance shall be deemed to be part of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and shall be incorporated therein and given an appropriate chapter and/or section number at the time of the L next revision of said Legislative Code. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved. by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: By: Adopted by Council: Date FACT SHEET PHOSPHOROUS IN DETERGENTS WHY IS TAE PHOSPHOROUS LEVEL IN WATER SYSTEMS A CONC.ERN~ Phosphorous is one of three primary nutrients found in water. Phosphorous, however, is the "limiting agent " for algae growth. Other nutrients are occur naturally in large supply. The natural level of phosphorous helps keep algae growth in check. Unnaturally high levels of phosphorous can result in alga blooms as was seen in Lake Peppen last summer. High phosphorous levels aid in the acceleration of the eutrophication process. WHAT IS EUTROPHICATION? Eutrophication is a natural process in which high levels of mineral and organic nutrients cause excessive plant and algae growth in a water system. The plants and algae then die, and during their decomposition, the oxygen is removed from the water. With all the oxygen removed,. the water is no longer habitable for the plant and animal live it once supported. IF EUTROPHICATION IS A NATURAL PROCESS WHY SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED? Eutrophication is a natural process that turns lakes and .ponds into swamps and bogs and eventually into solid land. Under natural circumstances, this process can take hundreds of years. When eutrophication is acceleration by excessive phosphorous levels, the time it takes to "kill" a lake is cut to a fraction of the original time required. WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF PHOSPHOROUS IN WATER SYSTEMS? There are a number of sources of phosphorous. These include fertilizers, runoff from both cultivated and uncultivated lands, detergents, industrial wastes, and human and animal excrement. IF THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SOURCES WHY ARE WE CONCENTRATING ON- DETERGENTS? There are a number of reasons we are concentrating on detergents. There are a number of laundry detergents currently sold in St. Paul that do not contain phosphorous. ~rhis indicates that phosphates may be removed from home detergents and the detergents can still be considered to have a satisfactory level of effectiveness by the public. WHICH DETERGENTS CONTAIN PHOSPHOROUS AND WHICH DO NOT? All liquid laundry detergents do not contain phosphorous; it is not needed for liquid detergents. The solid detergents that do not contain phosphorous include Wisk and Surf. The detergents that do include phosphorous include Tide, Arm & Hammer, and Oxydol. HOUSEHOLD DETERGENTS Without Phosphorous Lever Brothers* * Surf * Rinso * Wisk Colgate Palmolive * Dynamo 2 With Phosphorous Proctor and Gamble * Dreft * Cheer * Oxodol * Tide (Including Tide w. Bleach, Tide Unscented) * Bold * Dash Colgate Palmolive * Punch * Fab Lever Brothers * All Church & Dwight * Arm & Hammer Dial Corp * Instant Fels Gateway Foods * Exceptional Value Although boxes of these detergents say the detergent may contain trace amounts of phosphorous, a representative of Lever Brothers has stated that these detergents do not contain phosphorous. Any phosphates present are incidental results of the manufacture of the detergent. ~~ m n ~ o ° Ta n - to n ~' v, m ~ n ,; - •_ - r ~ _ a f- - ao '~ N :: S ~ " y -~ ~ m0 S iD A U ~ ,°n 1 1 C S 3 ~ ~' - < `< to C =7: - y ~ t.. _. ~ .- ~ n m n "+ -• m A V :- ~ - A V V <__ m .-. V ~ ~ `_' ~~. ~ f. n ~ < r (=• ~ T= .J; r: ~' ~'< ~+ _- -, ~ •, o m x 3v ~ ~ ~ ~+ ° o ' am C7 ° .- C: c a 2 3 _ c - n =.-•^r w O f w rm- ~ y~ y W L'. y 'C m "r7 O y N 1 n O n ~ ""j -m, n m .•-' n 7 •' -_ •- ^~ n ......... Oa `^...5~ ~~•m G n m II.~ ~ C'St1-~.j NO G N :1O O 7 C7 •; ~ f;~ ^ m to A ~ .~ -• o - C ~ y '< c m ~ O ao c T y 'C `~ _' J =, - ~ ._ " =+ 7 = ~ G ~- :. ~ m :o m ~ S~OO•y ~, _° m n 5:'o?.m = oo~' ° < D c r- m Z_.r o o n - o'L ~ '< Om~~ '"<~' m II.O=•~_<~• _ ~p•Cm7 Cam.. ~?, p'~-'~„~~n.-Cry ~~_tn ama Q. O~ O O to m w m r. m p m ~. m~ to `< - O ~ O~ y~ y C .-' r-_ o ~-' • O . ~ m w r O .- N y "' ~ : -' 7c- ° _ :O - 7 S•O ~ ~ ~' A m > 3 ~ y r- r .- ~ 1. ^.... ~ n S C 2 ~, o°v ~ ~ ~ ~ .'_, t7• m av r9 m ^ ~. N b n II. ~ ~ f- a _. o , -^. = -• _ ~ m •- = -, N r ~. °- - •o - c m ~m °`~•-- c0- ~'~ m ~ a v,o -y o o-< -+m o'< ~'~+ ~ < c =c "7 :.._ -~+•o 3r.°-`c=nn-• _c-,mac-, ,, ~ .o~,E»a•o oy`D(7~~y~oyo <_<~--,c_ ~: - m m y ?-. _• .~ 5.O y m`< y--C1 ~ C m a ~_•~•'m O ^_S`' m y_.I 'n 1~ .+f] •'•< A 3 ~3 1 7 .O n~ `< n rn O - G y tn' 7 m 3 O to ~ O m m m O' ~_ _. O~ O - C '. - ~= _. C O A '~ -~O .' S° -°i7 Sm ° ~ n 7 _..Sn _ n .._.~ OC C rJ.. ti) " .. n.m :v O C•7 C r C•A m o n ,... m ,<~ --, m ~• 'A' to ~' a ~ °• C' y o`' n o• ° " ::, o •, o ~ " r. ; '- < ~ n ~ ' nmCOn[7 7c .C ._.,.-mco-•, ~ Cr7 and m-,•'r'fD`< A < n ~~_ ° .~.t C 7G y ~O.• O S pp`< .....'O O O y_ << G r ~ S O~_ O^ .-. A -~ m _~ ~_ 7 C ~_. tj C n L~ _r+ m `+ ~ m T7 t7 ~7 y •-i O .-.. .' V II. y- II O ~-.~ ~.. 7• b n S J O m m = .: O ~ m m 7 t C_ov• ~• J' O m o = 0 to y S -• ~ y ~ 0^' ~ D ~ O p < ~ m y' ~ ~ O ~ ~ `•. [' •r. , C r- C C ~ C y . o ~ ?y ~m•. ° o o-m r. S.!-^' o'D sm =• `-" . d _~ o °-m o ~ o-O _._ o _ y ., ~ J ..•~ - c.: nO " . -, °•~ o'er -gym o ~ ° o m c c v ~ c ~ ~ o y m =~~_ ~ m = ~ y _ _-.~~ ~ - < ~.~ ~ -•¢ y ~ S ~ e+ 3 ' ~ .,. r^ a+ y O ~. y A ,•. ~ 7 ~ m m 7 O c n ~ ~ ~ y m ra .. f ~ r. ~ ` •~O O ., ~ ~ < <= '- ° ~ nr?~ = s ~ N o x ~ ~•~ ~ m ~ %n d < . c ,i, m ~ ~o C A ~ ~ ~'~ c ",<~ ^ ~ o r'r. r _ = o ~y~°-m~z'^.° y A.-c<<<TCC A ~ ~ v,mm_r o ..., -'navc °~c ~~- - tc _mtn C =~ O O °i O .-.. ~ A - y ° ~ 'n ° t' '~ - ~ m O ..... m C_ ~ A .~ C O c O r. S , _ ~ < C C .+ '_ 0 1 .:n _ m O ''• -, m O O. -•~ p r_ r -_ r r r - rp ~ f. ~• __ O O Ti~G -~ C C - ~ ^~ C r'- Q ~ m m ^. < O O O .~ _. ~ .. - _ _ - ~' R ~ tn• n a: -• y .. O m [J O C. ~ "' - y G ~ A A ~ y n f~ ,_a< •~ .- .. - rJ .- [ y(/~~ °x•+r~ '0- ~- ~ mtn-'•o 7~0 -~_- _p'Ax_ =C7i~ -r°~ rr.'"o A~Ar=°3°A ~'• z oc^~ r' f~~~~ cc-'=--- - ~ C eA•'- -> n C =t .y T9 ~ n ~ .'' . ~ C O' ~ II. C O S `• ^ _ ~ < r. c _ ._. .y-~ ~~ o=-X ~'~ ~ ~ r*-- T='~ D O y•o in U) o~ ~•`< ~ ra ~ r- f °_'_' ` ~ ~ ~Q fr -m, m S -• ....- n ~ C -m, ~ - ~ m £ m " ~ C" - ~_^ ~ m ~" c~ •-TC - r: ~ r^_ C - _ Cn'^ C m v ° to ~-' ~ 7 o C p ~" ~; ~ (7 -~ " n II 7 H3 .~- eA- p _ C :. S7; G -, r. = - :: O c~'~ ._~ m r C C y U R O R O• ~ ~~ C• ~ y - ~ `G m .m-, ^_ <•y .., t°i+ ? - C Ti '."+ ^ m ~ 7 O .-. O ^ = m ~ _ < r e•- - _ _ y N ^-, ^ ~ Tj pl l D U. ~7 • CJ ^ '-t y A S S ~ ~ r y .A J .~ l _ - r ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~y~~tmn3~ ; mx~n•°~occ. ~ ,-d~~.~ m -~2~ .,-<,----=nf .~~ ~ 'T • p O r` -Ai m y _ y .... ~• m S to -s t^ __ _~ C R - .. - U] 'dmmo~°G-G°-"cmi .tyo?'~n'E 'vC~~m cC]=•°,~m~•C~C] ~m -_~n ~°c ~ O ~. ~ o ~ C' ~ C io n m m y < y y t3 ° m ~ ° L., < y O .. O ~ =_ x D ~^. m tys, =~r~' 3 ~ ~ ~•,..-0'° 7_••o V ~'o y o o ~o ~° ~ ~ °- y7O`< c c -~ ? ~ 3 _ ~ ~ =r: _~ ~_< "m G.R `<ln ~.. Std.-p C II.m m'O 71-'-y ~.. ~•.mi ~0..ry tDO b~D ~'_'~.V -~~.~m -f TQ_G'1.~m Ceti b ~-~~ b ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ nm ^~ _^°i ti Q.~.m 0.3 ~ CwA O o m _a m_OO n =_.r.', ='r r t<~ •-- Came G r C.O ~. '. ~»... C N O m m II.O ti C y m t= y y C w O C 0 ..a '-em- O ~.T` = O to ~ c.~ ~ _ ~S °•-OG•O'~ y m n '..' C <•Gy m m t7•~ ~ Dy y- G 7 O C•~•^ .. ~ 7 •-~ •°-~m'C_ G.,' :"n 7 m^^.zA ~ A m m a+~N y°_°.m y O O C ~ p~ S~ N r'rj 7 m -^ G =(n a+.Q. '_. _° S_.p m stn c~ o ~' ° A T ~ ...:~ -. ° n m a A w~• r• ~-~ tv ~'co n °.--~".v,c oo_ c~~Tm mp '+~o~o~== "~ joy ~?.~~°r~ G N•- O m Cn<'mO-~AC~`- rII. ..ySm OO.~m.m.C- ~~~_~_~~~A n ~~~~,~=~yCCV^ «- n• n S A - ^~ O Cm 7 C CT•'~'7 y c* O r. y' m 7 m• (:"' O U C:J +. G C A- ~ ~-C7o ~_-r+~'.t ~ :•O ~ro~~.c•~ ~ p m ~ ° ~ ~ o ~ `~ _ .m^"-y "'A' vy-i'~ ~ ~ c ~•~J'' ~"=~ ~ -~~•~ Z -i R A ~ _.:n l7 (~ ~ II. ~ .D m m A ..~ ~ r..°..~ j ~ t~'J T ~ '°"~ f, O CJ ~ ~ 7 = : ~ C _. m G J - ' tJ .^.. ;n O r '_ ,~ < -. m cn •-. m ~ S to 3 ~ m C7 t~ m T7 m ~ C• p C/] r ~ ., v - C..'. 7 " ~ ~ ~•c_.Vo7c ~y cWp~ -~~•., c? ~-° ~ <CC~<;,~`< C~ .no= c-~~^vpA O ~ ~~ ryn •, y =_~ ~ n<~ .c.m ° o C~ o =;c m v-_,,,, A•o m - o~ c y m ".- __ A Z v G .O-•-- ~mR ~:~~~f °~c.yt'° ~`~7° -'~~? y r r•y•r.-.^o~ mN ~ .~ = ° ~ ~ ' T'n_ .`y.'.. ^ r".- ~ N '~1 ~° ~ m ~ >°c m ~ ° t' ~ II. ~ m ~ o- ~_ av -• ? c ° G `< <- n o ~ r; '~ ~ oo Z ~ _o ~' -.x - y A n C' ~ _O ~-,. ~ m ~ m m ~ -, .^.._ n ~ .. _.C7~ N. .. C -'. ~ ° r ~ r ,'•. o > ~ iTa U - ' U (- `. O ~" 7 .C -' = m •n, y ^, 7 V GJ . r. , ~ s ••' 7 I . f r n ~ = ~. t- n. y ~ U O O U n `^ ~ y~ .~i. 'U 7 ^ ~ T. p ~ m ~< ,~ O ~ - C m - C O ~ C ra r' ~ '< - _ = rr-7 ~ A C n a` to y- rr r O r C n O m A 7 u: • O ° A .. O O '. A y- -' "' J G' C i . `< T, _ = ^~ O - C r; . n - - j' = ,~, ~ ~ OC ~ ~ S ~ ~ n ~ fJ t] _ •O-~ r = m O ~ ~ Ti ~7 T_ ~ < _G' ~ ~ r' --{ m _' :~ ~ C - •" _ .- ~ m ^ C_ _- < O ~_ C_ ^ ^ r "~ y U -7 ~7 m G O -_ V - - _ 7: '~ ' ^ (~ r 0 ~ r ~" n n `~ ° 'L ~• ~ m m A ~. n S a? = ~ ~ '~ = ~ to ,^„ , ~ _ ^ - m C r, C ~ r' n. " O _ rj C. -. - J 7 o O '• ~~~ n n n A C r S ,t O 'f. A f C~ r- D ~ "' - - ~ - fJ fmA m .".. "'~ .:: .. r• [^. % T f7 .~ C ~ .-. r m ~ y .--. G .. - r= = r ... (% Z j n .. r_ y n G y~ A C O_ x~ 7- ~ T -_ 7 Oy ~~ ~ - _ 7 O A n ~ '~ ° _. ~:n r - m t~ A r n C "., -,~~ c r C -c -U ~ ;J:r _ ~ ~_ C,~ _ U m _. n - 7 n J ° _. p _..~ m _. n m• r ~ . ~ r., r 7^ '/' C7 Cn • -~ . T r a~ • - n - •r. .... r - C - ~ C• ~ ~ ' C ~_ r - - _ - - - - J T: T~ - in m •y' v. O '~ _ O y 7 O G1 - - ., ~' . JUI'1 cv _ _ _ . _ / • SHOREVIEW FERTILIZER ORDINANCE NaTYCE ,. • Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota, 1984, Chapter 502, Article 8, Section 2 {270.72) (Tax Clearance; Issuance of Licenses), the licensing authority is cequired to provide to the 1Viinnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification num- ber and the social security number of each license applicant. Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of . X974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the use of this infor- mation: . ~. This information may be used to deny the issuance or renewal of your ' license in the event you owe Minnesota sales, employer's withholding or motor vehicle excise taxes; 2. Upon receiving this information, tt~e licensing authority will supply it only to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement the Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service; 3. FAII.,URE'l`O SUPPLY ING OF YOUR LICENSE ISSUANCE CiRE OR RELAX THE PROCESS . RENEWAL APPLICATION. . please supply the following information andreturn along with your application to the licensing authority. pplicant's Last Name First Name Middle Initial pplicant's Address City, State, Zip Code pplicant's Social Security No. Position O fiver, Partner, etc_ usiness Name usiness Address City, State, Zip Code Minnesota Tax Identi ication Number Signature .Date ice.. 90 15 ~ 35 CITY OF SHOREVIEW "` ~ ~ Uy~r H~~~y , ~ ` JUN 26 ~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~, ,fit ~ ~ `. .,.4h{ :`i+h ?$. ILK 'Ki . ~. \ 4:sr~ y \• f. 1 prdinance No. 477 Page Two le of lawn fertilizez shall be A s~np initial application 2- Fertilizer Sam lE• along with the submitted to the City at least 30 days befo~reple and, thereaftees•are implemented- for a License, sition Chang sis certi.fl~ fertilizer canPo laced by a chemical analy submittal can be rep lai,oYatozy- commercial lawn oz a by an independent testing 11 be $100.00. T~ license shall • .• ~, l,lcense Eee. The annual license fee Shall fertilizer applicator sha fir. The license fee expire on the 31st day of Dec ppp,00 shall. not be .pro rated. A bond in the amount of S1, Tl-~e bond shall be ~. Performance Band. a l~c~tion form. ulatians. ~ ~~tted with the RA ~ revent the conditioned upon compllanc~eeds shalll~ t P ~ criminal complaints for ordinance viola- Actions to collect bond px City from fi3.ing bons. licator • Ccmcmercial lawn fertilizer~~itions C. Conditions of License• subject to the following licenses shall be issued which shall be specified on the license foim: licatozs - Commercial lawn fertilizer app fer_ lin le any comrercial lawn 1, Random Same ~. 4t anY rmit the City to samp . shall Pe lication to be apPlled wxthln ~e City tilizer app initial license- fertilizez time after issuance of thee commercial lam' in the 2-- possession of License. thereof shall becial lawn application license or a COIo ed by the cow lica- possession of any party emp y, lawn fertilizer aPP fertilizer applicator when making rovi- tians within the CitLicenSee shall comply with the p 3. State R ulations. rtilizer and Soil Conditionez Law rough sions of the Minnesota Fe ~, Lutes Sections 17.711 ~ as curtained i i M i 2Reand tents thereto: and includ'.~1 pwners 9i9.03d lotions for Pro er uest, the Pro~r~' . A. ~~~, gam lin Upon the City's req les of lawn fertil- . rovide the City with same The ~antity of owner shall P roperty owners. ratory izez to be applied by p e enough to pe~nit lobo the sample shall be larg - testing. Property owners shall n°vious B. gSe of Im rvious Surfaces-etative materials an imMural deposit leaves or other Vey stems or surfaces or within st°~' water drainage sy drainage ways. t fOZ driveways, sidewalks Lam Areas. Excep or areas which have C, ilnim roved led by structures, patios, areas occup ail land areas Shall be co°- roved by landscap~nq• been imp etative growth- . erect by plants or veg 26 ' 90 15 ~ 35 CiT~ OF 3HURE4'IE-a JUN ;, . I prdinanCe t1o. 9y7 page Thz~ shall :'.'~. lotions er applications Lawn feztiliz or ~~en Novi' 919.040 ~nezal ~"'._-•-•~ is frozen _ . • A licaW~°~ 'the 5rO`~nd ear . A• n~be applied l of the succeeding Y ,n fezti.lixer bet 1 and May of analYz1 9 zo~rty The cost 1 sis Cost• applicators licators oz -y~ Ana fry, c~ezcxal eYCial app , the. $ ~ samples taken cam' inda.cates that shad-l lae P ~~• t~ Y s~nPle ale els authorized herein - owners osmers s the property exceed fran- . pY-osphar~s content CorporatiCitY b No xson' f,izm, thin the antent• id fertilizer w~ X,alf Percent Y ~. Fertil1zer i apply ligt?ns .more than one•-• wh~,ch con- Ch1se steal coma ferth~ of phosphorus, wh~.ch zanula~ ual to .LO Shot ht of phosphorus , or 9 cent by we19 ~,an ri t~ fog of i. weig more than three Pe -. is less tams sijgle applicatlOn feet unless ofephO~'horus pez 7000 mare wounds . 0.5 pounds of p2pg. 11 pat exceed • amount sha laorn area' 1 is rt ~ 000 square feet of Annual app fertilizer to . ,phosphorus ~ 11 apply No arson Sha• • _ D• I rvious Surfaces. impervious surfaces. 11 not be made lications sha aurce• N~~. ~ • ~ EeztilizeWe~ a~ or watez xes . E• Buffer Zone. fowl on, of any feed for water • within ten feet 11 place water rson sha nd, lake or Water Eow'1' S0 ~ et of a Wetland ~ Po E• ithin in or w~ - ~ limiter by xesonrce. stall not zow1eg sea turf areas the fizst 9 E~ t• Newly an by 4 phosphorus for 919.054 -~on the ~ 4th day of Eebru- this °xdi~nance his ` of gyoreview son. the City .~ BY THE City Council of . PASS weaell,•MaYpz azY, 19aS• xd A. Richa day of March a9 g ~r-' ~= pUgLYSHED pN THEE--' ' TUN 26 '9p 15~?6 CITY OF' SHOREVIEW ORDINANCE N0.478 CITY OF SHOREViLW P : 6i10'~ 4, --•. =.~ '~ A.MR~z ~~~ G Tb LAWN EERTiLIZER APPLZCATiON COL~'~ftb ~ ODE mHE CI'T'Y COUtaCIL ORDAINS AS Ate ~,tg',t~MEN'f. ~' THE SHOREVI~1 MpNTCTPAL CODE: Section glg,pgq(A) of the Shoreview Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows= A. Time of application. Lawn fezta,lizer applications shall not be applied when the ground is frozen or between November 15 and April I5 of the succeeding yeaz. Passed by the City Council of Shoreview this ~$th day of March 1985. _ ~-~ Richazd A. Wede}.1, Mayor ATTEST: Gary L. 'ckson, City Manager PUBLISHED this 70th day of April 1985. JUDY ~b 'y~ 1~~.~a ~1 i r ~r 5Y1lJKtVltly r. r~ lei ~_ ' ORDINANCE 2~. 50$ CI'TY' (7F $HQREVIEi~l, MINNESdI'A AN ORDIISANCE AN1~IDTIVG SECTIONS 919.020 (B) , 919.020 (B) (3) , 919.040(c) , 919 . o~.o(D) AMID ADDING SEGTJ:QNS 97.9.01.5, 919.015(A), 919.015(8), 919.015(C), 919.015(D), 919.015{S), 919.040(G), 919.040(G)(1); 919.040(G)(2), 919.040(G)(2)(a), `~ -. 919.040(G)(2)(b), 919.040(G)(3), AMID 919.060 '' • REL,A'r1NG TO LAWN FERTYLYZER AID PESTICIDE APPLICAmION ~VTRQL . The City Council ordains as amenr~nexits to the Shoreview t~u~zcipal Code: Sections 919.020(8), 919.020(B)(3), 919.040(G), and 919.040{D) are hereby amPx~ded t4 read as follows: `~ . Section 919 . C?20 (B) ~,icense Application ~'~cncedure. Applications ,~. for a Commercial lawn fertilizer applicator license shall be submitted to the city manager. The application shall consist of the following: Section 919.020(8) (3) License Fee. The license fee _Gha11 be as designated, from time to time, by city iii resolution. The licenso shall expirQ on the 31st day of December. The licerL~ fee shall not be prorated. Section 919.040(C) Fertilizer Content. No person, firm, corporation or franchisee, sha1.1 apply liquid fertilizer within the City of Shoreview which cxuTtains more than 1/2~S by weight of phosphate expressed as P205, t>r granular fer-rilizer which contains more than 3~ by weight Uf Phosphate expressed as P205, un7.ess a single application is less than or equal to .10 pounds of phosphate expressed as P2Q5 per 1000 square feet. Annual application amounts shall not exceed O.S pounds of phosphate expressed as P205 per 1,,000 square feet of lawn area. Section 919.040{D) Ympexvious Surfaces and Drainage Ways. No person shall apply fertilizer t4 ir~ex~~ious surfaces, or to the areas within drainage ditches or waterways. The City C,otmCil ordains as additions to the Shoreview Nhu~.cipal Code: Sections 97.9.015, 919.015(A), 919.015{B), 919•.015(C), 919.015(D) and 919.015(E) are hereby added to the municipal code of the City of Shoreview to read as follows: 919 _ c715 Definitions. (A) The term "pest" means an insect, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, terrestrial or aquatic plant, animal life, - virus, bacteria, or other organism designated by rule as a pest, e:ccept a virus, bacteria oz other microorganism on or in liv~.ng humans or other liva.r~g animals. -1- I JUN c6 '9© 1537 CITY OF SHORE'JIEId -. (B) The term "pesticide" means a substance or mi+~re o£ substance-5 intended to px'ever~t, destz~rY, xePAZ, or mitigate a pest, and a substance or mixture of ~bstarices ~.ntended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant. (C) The term "plant xegul.atox" mean a su~a~nce ox mixture of substances intended through physiological act~,ari to accelerate or retard the xate of growth or rate''of maturation of a plant, or ~ pthercuise alter the behavi-or ~of ornamental or crop plants or the produce t~f the plants. Plant regulator does not a.z~clude substances trace el eenxw,.tntst that they are intended as plant nutrients, nutritional chemicals, plant,irxx.'ulants or sail amendments. (n) The term "car to ~~ ens eissu~~ Y' t~ M1nraeso a a commercial app Ca~xN.ssionex of Agriculture- () The team "nnercial applicator" means a Person with a mnccxrmercial applicator licej1se issued t7y the Minnesota Cocnai.ssic~ner of 2~'iculture - Sections 919.040(G), g19.U40(G)(l), 919.040(G}(2), 919.040(G)(2)(a). 919.04(? (G ){ 2) (b) , and 9 Y9.040 (G) (3) ~ axe hereby added t4 the rncuv.c5-pal code of the City of Skx~x'eview to read as fbllaws 9l9.040(G) Warning signs for pesticide appiicatian: ail rcial or xnercial aPPlicators who apply pesticides to tuxf areas must ~` affix warning signs to the propez'ty where the pesticides are applied. The warn1xag signs shall compllr with ' the following criteria and• contain the following ~.nformati-oi'= (Z) The warn~.r~ signs tmu-st project at least 18 inches above the top of the grass line_ The wrarz~ ~-5~ must be of a material that is raa.n xesa.stant for at least a 48 hour ~~,and ~~ rarain 3n nlaca up to 48 "~ Exam the time of initial application. (2) The fol~.owing informati~ must be printed on the warnisx~ signs in constrasting colors and capitalised letters measuring at least 1/2 inch, or in ano~er format appiroved by ~7e Mirirl;e5ota Commissioner of Agriculture. The signs must pxr~vi.de the follUwing information: . {a) The name of the business, entity, or person applyirx,~ the pesticide; and (b) The follo~ring language: "'his area chemically treated. Keep children and pets off until {date °f safe entxy)" or a universal-ly accepted symbol and tee approved by the Minnesota C~missionex of pgri.cult~se as recognized as having the same mea~~ or intent as -2- J UI `F co ~~ ~fied in this subpara9z'aph- 'Y'he warning signs may include the name of the pesticide used- f.., r~.: - ~ (3) The waxning signs must be posted on a lawn or yard between two feet ~. five feet from the sidewalk or street. por par}~s, golf courses, athletic fields, pla~~grol~ °r the w3~C13.nq signs must othex similar rec~eationa~. property', be posted i~ediatelx adaacent to ar2as within the property where pesticides have been app3.ied ox' at or neap ;the .. ecxt~~ar~c`-es to tho pry'- , Sec~.ion 919.Ob0 is hPx~eby added to the municipal. code of the City of Shr~review to read as follows: 919.060 P~• Except as her ~ ter prov~.ded, arty per~Y, firm, ~~ corporation or ~anr-,h~.see w~~~~ed of a vioia~i.(u7 o er on ozdinarice shall be subject to a fine of $00.00-1 ~ spubject ~ corYVicted of a triol.ati.on of Section 919.020(C)( ) to 2i. fine of $7.OQ_00. Tha provisions of this o~`dinance shall be effECtive on the 4~ X of February.. ., 19 $$ ~ ' 1 of the " ty of Sha this 19 t ~ y of January , ~~ss~~ b~ the city ~ l / ~.~~. / .chard Weclell, ATi`EST: / /~ Dwight. ^J~-`~ City Manager pUBLISF~ on the 3rd~Y of February _, 19 88 . ..~. -3- CITY OF SHpREVIEW 4665 NORTH VICTORIA STREET SgQREVZEW MN 5-5126.484-3353 FERTILIZER APPL.ICA7pR LICENSE API'LICATIpN FEE: $].25.00 before April 7. ' LICENSE ~ $175..00 April 1 oz after gUSIPIESS MN TAX TU NO. ~`'~ `y NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE 7TP BUS.P301dE.NQ- STREET soc. sic. Na. APPLICANT NAME V ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PEONE.NO. ~ _ ST~tEET ~ for a license fpr the calendar year 19 ~ , in the City I hereby apP-Y of Shoreview', Ramsey County, Minnesota. If a firm or corporation, give name and address of Superin~er-dent or foreman responsible for wor4c. ADDRESS PSONE.NO. NAME Description of lawn fertilizer formula proposed to be appliea in Shoreview... . ~1ii1 you be applying pesticides in Shoreview? Yes _ No If yes, list type _ licant makes thzs application pursuant to all. the The unaersigned app laws of the State of Minnofo~~iorevieaCmayufromat~meetoltimenprescribe. City Council of the City Signature of Applicant A ' 1 icant: Do not fill below this 1 l.ne Fertilizer Sample or Certified Analysis Submitted Date Eond in Amount of $1,000..00 Submitted ~ Date Date Time Schedule/Stmt. of unacceptable Weather Cond. Rece t ~ New genewal Fee Paid _ p A roved far license This Date CxTY OF SI30REVXE~r7 Council File # Ordinance # Presented By Referred To Committee: Date An ordinance amending Chapter 357 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to solid waste and adding provisions. regarding the~use of incinerators within the city of Saint Paul. Legislativepurpose. The Council of the City of Saint Paul is concerned about the present use of incinerators in homes and small businesses, which incinerators are not capable of attaining high enough temperatures so as to achieve complete combustion of the materials being placed into the incinerators. Tl-~e incomplete combustion of such products as paper, cardboard, plasti:.s and other organic materials will cause enussion into the air of pollutants such as dioxin and which pollutants are both harmful and annoying. Complaints have been received from the operation. of these incinerators concerning smoke, odors and annoyance to persons, as well as concern about the potential environmental dangers. At the present time the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency does not monitor nor require permits for incinerators which have a refuse burning capacity less than 1,000 pounds per hour. The PCA has proposed to adopt rules relating to incinerators that would rohibit incinerators in single and multi-family dwellings, and would establish permit, monitoring and emission standards' for incinerators, including incinerators which have a burning capacity of less than 1,000 pounds per hour. For the protection of the public health and safety, and the public welfare, the Council finds that the elimination of inadequate incinerators and the imposition of monitoring and emission standards is an appropriate governmental purpose, and that the enactment of local emission regulations with respect to stationary sources more restrictive than those regulations enacted by the PCA is a reasonable means to achieve that purpose. Now, Therefore, The Council of the City of Saint Paul Does Ordain: Section 1 That section 357.02 (Definitions) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended so as to add the following definition thereto: In~inex~lt®r shall mean any furnace or other devise used in the process of burning solid waste for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible matter. Section 2 Green Sheet # ORDINANCE ITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA That section 357.05 (i) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (i) ~n~in~t®rs: (1- ~) Responsibility: The owner and/or occupant of any premises, business .:. establishment or industry involved in the operation of an incinerator t~~.t~t~h~e> ~~s~~;ofor the reduction of solid waste by incineration shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of such facility in a manner consistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the public and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and in compliance with the requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (~ ) Facilities and Operation: All facilities and operations for the reduction of solid waste by incineration and any attendant operation as listed in paragraph (h) of this section that maya be carried on in conjunction with incineration at the same premises shall be carried on in a facility designed for the purpose and approved by the County of Ramsey, metropolitan council, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and as approved by the City of Saint Paul. All solid waste involved in the operation of the facility shall be confined to adequate enclosed areas for dumping, storage, handling and charging. Adequate fire protection shall be provided in the dumping, storage, handling and charging areas. Adequate facilities and equipment shall also be provided to clean the entire premises, including water supply and drainage for washing down the entire facility. ~. The .provisions of this section shall not only apply to the incineration activities where the sole purpose is the reduction of solid waste in volume and weight, but also to such other activities as may be required to salvage, process and utilize solid waste for such operations as the generation of steam for heat and power. The remaining solid wastes, such as incinerator residue and noncombustible solid waste which is to be finally disposed of at a sanitary landfill, are to be removed from the site regularly with no excessive storage of such material at the incinerator site. Access to the facility shall be provided only at those times which are- approved and when authorized employees are on duty at the facility. Section 3 This ordinance and the provisions, contained therein restricting the use of certain incinerators shall take effect and be in force 180 days after its passage, approval and publication. 2 Section 4 This ordinance shall be deemed apart of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and shall be incorporated therein and given an appropriate chapter and f or section number at the time of the next revision of said Legislative Code. it Requested by Department of: --------- ------- Yeas ------ Na s --------- Absent Dimon Goswttz ___ Lon Maccabee Rettman Thune Wilson Adopted by Council: Oate _ Adoption Certified by Council By: _ proved By: Secretary by Mayor: Oate By: form Approved by City Attorney sy: _ Approved Council By: _ by Mayor for Submission to INCINERATOR ORDINANCE FACT SHEET WHAT WOULD THE ORDINANCE DO? .The ordinance would prohibit the use of incinerators with a refuse burning capacity below 1,000 pounds per hour and currently without a permit issued by the Minnesota. Pollution Control Agency. WHO USES THIS TYPE OF INCINERATOR? -,, This type of incinerator is primarily used in apartmen~~ buildings and small businesses to burn non-hazardous material such as corrugated cardboard, paper, and general municipal solid waste. Homeowners have been prohibited from burning their garbage for several years. DO THESE INCINERATORS OPERATE WITH PERMITS FROM ANY AGENCY? No. The MPCA only issues permits to incinerators with refuse burning capacity greater than 1,000 pounds per hour. No agency permits incinerators with a smaller refuse burning capacity. HOW MANY INCINERATORS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE ORDINANCE? We don't know. Because these types of incinerators operate without permits and are therefore unmonitored, we have no way of knowing how many are currently being used. We do know that there are only four incinerators in St. Paul with a MPCA permits. These are at United Hospital, the Ford Plant., Waldorf Paper, and the Gillette Company. United is planning to close its incinerator this summer. Most incinerators currently being used in St. Paul would be required to shut down. IS 1 000 POIINDS PER HOUR A LARGE REFUSE BURNING CAPACITY? 1,000 per pounds per hour is a very large level of refuse burning capacity. The refuse burning capacity of an incinerator used by a grocery store is 150 pounds per hour. WHY.SHOULD THESE INCINERATORS BE SHUT DOWN? Continued use of these incinerators poses a number of public health problems for the residents of St. Paul. The unmonitored emissions pose an increased risk to the general public health and raise the potential for damage to the environment. Incineration without the proper emission-cleaning devises can emit chlorine, dioxin, and other toxic chemicals. Without proper controls on the remaining ash, ash with high concentrations of lead, nickel, cadmium, and other dangerous heavy metal can be disposed of in the general municipal solid waste stream. Because-there is no inspection process for these incinerators, there is a continuing risk to the fire safety to the residents and businesses of St. Paul. Incineration is also a process that is in direct conflict with the State's and City's solid waste reduction policies. IF THESE INCINERATORS ARE UNMONITORED, HOW DO YOII RNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM? In the last 18 months there have been over 50 complaints about improperly operating incinerators in St. Paul. These complaints have been made to the City Complaint and Information Office, the Fire .Department, and the MPCA. The complaints come from all areas of the City. ^• 'O C O C O I n'-~ O L C J j q ~ ~ V >0 p ~ V ~ L -• w O .. O t O _ r W' V' -> O d O a V v v-0 _ 3 _ T 'u ~ K u ri _ J 7-` 'J c C t L T Q C y t W~ i >' ^~ ~~ ~ m Z ' ` •. i C D v ~ C O w V J ` O C b ~i c O ~ c O c H v o O U u -' ~- ~ >. ` O - V __ :-0 . D v~ O ~ eO ~ V _O ~ -y O O V O U V ~ j O _ L • - ` F- c A _ r .. G~` ._ c~ O -~ C f v. v. `O M y " G O ~ A L y~ C a C y u o > 3 h p ~ E O V O U O = c ~ 3 v ~ a j U V -0 V C- C i'V ~ O O G CO _ O u y, -~ V y •.• ~ M U U h N r 1 ~ u = .a ~ L ~ ` ~' v c A ~ ` b a1 t p •' `1 C c O t ." cNOa .1 ~ } . >` '~ .- ` ._ O k '~ u -0 0 G V H C d y y O ~{ ~~ ~ v. O ~J J Z V n _ ~ G _ V ~ ? ~ u i O ^ G U ~ O ~ Q = t_~ y 4= O' a _T ~ N Y n• ~~ O j 5 C t . J Y ~ r. __ . u _ - ' = v f- N ~ b 4 y u j u V h C~ o. - v " o o` o =' ` v 3 .1 ~ ` U.1 ~ G U ° G = 7 G ~ ° u o - c ~ ° - u ~ ~ = u o ~ u c M `o ~ " o ~ a b° ~ N o o ° ~ E „ ~ - ' ~n o - o .E _ ~- ~. .. >. .= ~ ? v -- ~ + ` o u D o y m a ~. tl V y q E - • ` U y O K - = .~ U o - ~ ~ L L o~_ S u - _` _ u _ J w O ~ ~ h~ y v C o j >, u d S -y w~ 0 ~~ N L rn ~ ^ L c m E P - _ - N N V L O U ~ L e _ ,^. u L ~ _ O 3 L ~^". ~_ ~% G ,LJ` •~ =~ q= ~ c G~~ :.n C y ~ =` - .z y M 7 v G ~ O _ = 1 c - n 7 J O w { O •> O q c L `~ t ~~ V y d O V L- O O 3 u _ L ~ E ~ ~ ^DJ •` G • ~ C O .-° u •`. C= Q -~ h C ` G ~0 O o '_ ¢ ! u Z v U ° Z ~ ~:~ C J - ~ u . v v s'. _ ° ~ _ J :~ L. u vi _ - > 7 ~ _ ~ C. ` e o i 3 ti ~ V ul O ~ ¢. ~ -0 ~ b p ~ ? f C ~ ~ ~ u .o ~ r O ~ ~o _ _ j J - _ - >, 7 L= .- G ~ c ~ - oo a Q` ~~ O •- V ti O O N `°' g °°' Q ~ ~• ~ r u D U~~ V p u ~ ` u c > u o c=-- _ 4 ` v ~o - c o b U _ m G ... __ ._ L .~ - u Z_. n ~ O J a co-. C C y+ a ... M F- G V u .~•~ ~-•\~ ~l~d J\ ~_ . ,~ Q ~ i cG u~ .- y 3 re u N ~ u v c r o o n u u u .% u= L~ u c= v ~ o v v m~ -_ ~ u 3 n~ o v v - O J _- '= C? - _ N h a >. L Z o L a >. :? o j F E° e c y~ = o ~ h~ o _ .= _~ n ' ~_- ` L Z = >. - u `o " f u \~ C• _ ~ ~ O p ~ P 'V V C L- O ~ V OC v V `O C ~ S 7 L ,- o r L A E O J ~, _ Q O c L ~ ~ O u _ T _ .n ~ V .~ ~ V O R n /. C~ V _ O V G C V 1 c W C `. L. L' t T L y ~ G~ C ` ~ C O v V G L O - = V V y V O .O V V A > C t E~ ] U c O W ~ U V i m : -.-j S V rn O C U O •y V O .q C J ` L V K d V ~ ^J A ~ ~ C ~ G .C v O .-. V O O _ O~_ u ~ V W C O t- V ~ V _ u 7 -" . U c J L '' F T ` O r ` T Y >: A V A C C A = C -O G iu`u J T` V V - V. N L p- C A C p D ~ A d V -~ _ - C V J v C O L c C 6 - ~ O ~ -" O C V ' V `~ O V~ V T E L r .C D O- - A T L C ~ O C A X G = ~ -' .,. U - ~ '.f c .n T u ~~ ~ A .-. C L H ~ u~". L. ~ ~ ELL u -~ m u A c ` ° . c i u w c g °m u v c i u q V T£ O" L C - C O O ._ ,... ~ ... ~ u ~ u ' v ~ V W = N .. i c ~ Oa c~ y y L `a a ~' ~ ° ~ O ~ t ~ i o V L F 00 E v ~ ` _ ~_ ~ O L Q . > _ 8 O L • C C •C E y O o -. A ~ A Q L - r ~ U V ~ .~ T O L A -V > f1 ~ > yy ' V R O V L U •V ~ m u u 6 C V = 3 m E w c ~_ V V N -' L N b t0 ~ ~ = ` V O . O c ,.,,, ~ '~ • • , 'ti_ 'O S -oo c a o u~ V ~= ~ u u 0 0 ~ O C O U ~ C~ y.J o n` C L G- .~ e c . O .. j~'A 6 0 ~"' ~ _ ? ~ y O ~ " ~ c oo ~ O ° ° - c L ~ ~ - `~. Y ee ~ oo E " °u v a. -° E G ~ a ~ n. " ° = t c _ •3 CO 3 •. c E A A v. ~ `o o L' c r ~ . p y N ~ V O Y w= 6 L O V V 6 V~ u L b ~ a~ n ~ L c y0 n t d O .A. G E . n C O J O B O c C c~ U= C 0 •' ~ y ` N - >` .O O N ,~ ~ i:! u o a ~ ° ~ o o ~ .4 -a u `° A g. .g •E 'u ° u o-" G o °u ~ u ~ .-. -' o ~ c - A ~ v v o ~ a g u C y w 3 c ~ 3° a m o ` ~ ~ c~ •= C uu "° n u n U ._ > ., v _ ~ ~ v ~ n y o u •- N o o .° c v - V7 U N u E V " u u ~ o o oN v u .~ < E-" C ~ ~- c -r '4' L G G V C = _6 7 ~• C ._. c y V V ~. D C ~ D A U q 1 o c 3 ._ r d 3 u •J U O O U :O -~ Y •~ Z . ~ ~ 0 rn = Y x a,~ Q _~ ; ~ N C r. u ~ ~ :J CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 25 Agenda August 6, 1990 Issue Statement: Discussion of City of Richfield's responsibility in handling and disposing of yard waste in the fall of 1990. Background: In the last year, significant changes in yard waste management policies and strategies have occurred at the state, city and county levels. As the result of state legislation (Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.931), yard waste is now prohibited from solid waste landfills. Prior to 1990, Hennepin County operated yard waste compost sites, but discontinued their involvement this year because of problems associated with the operation and management of such sites. The county opted earlier this year to let cities independently manage composting and yard waste activities. The county established a yard waste rebate program to reimburse the city for eligible yard waste management costs. For 1990, the City of Richfield could qualify for a rebate of approximately $33,000. However, the county has given a strong indication that the yard waste rebate program will be discontinued after this year. Currently, the City of Richfield relies on the private sector to handle yard. waste. Residents arrange with their garbage hauler pick up yard waste. In most cases, full service customers (those with unlimited monthly .garbage service) do not pay extra for yard waste pickup. Those with limited service pay, on average, approximately $1.50/bag of yard waste. Recommendation: Since this is a study session, no formal action needs to be taken. Staff recommends that in the short term (fall of 1990) the city use the yard waste rebate from Hennepin County to pay haulers to pick up yard waste from their customers two, three or four times at no extra charge. As a long term solution, the staff recommendation is that haulers be required, through the licensing procedure, to collect yard waste from their customers for a limited period in the fall at no extra charge. Haulers, in turn, will probably incorporate the costs into their pricing structures. Another version of this method would be to divide the city into zones for yard waste collection. Basis of Recommendation: (Short term solution) The source of the yard waste rebate comes from tipping fees paid for through residential garbage collection fees. The method described above would ensure that residents receive the benefit of the yard waste rebate while reinforcing the city's policy of letting the private sector handle solid waste collection. (The long term solution is very similar to the short term solution, except there is no rebate). Other advantages of this method include the following: ® Administrative costs for the city would be minimized. ® Costs incurred by residents would be minimized. This would be of particular benefit to residents on fixed or limited incomes.. ® It is a convenient arrangement for residents. Disadvantages of this method include the following• ® Full-service customers would gain little from the arrangement, since yard waste pickup is typically included in the price they pay. ® There is less of an incentive for residents to initiate backyard composting or to reduce the volumes of their leaves through mulching. ® Some haulers are concerned that customers will drop full- service during the fall. e There is no way to absolutely guarantee a reduction in billing by waste companies. Alternative Recommendations: 1. Continuation of Status Quo Under this alternative, haulers would continue their current arrangement with the city, whereby residents (depending on their level of garbage service) are charged approximately $1.50 per bag of yard waste. The advantages of__this approach are that: ® The cit 's y policy of letting the private sector handle solid waste collection and disposal is reinforced. ® Residents may have more of an incentive to do backyard composting or mulching. ® Costs to the city are minimized. The disadvantages of this approach are that• ® Dis osal costs for leaves could be p prohibitive for some residents. Those with limited garbage service could pay as much as $10 or more per week for leaf disposal during the fall pickup period (normally four or five weeks in duration). ® An increase in the illegal disposal of leaves would probably occur. ® Costs for yard waste dispos, Several of the haulers have full-service customers will for yard waste in 1991, and -could increase to a minimum of waste next year. sl will continue to rise. indicated that even be charged separately that yard waste pickup price of $2.00 per bag ® The city would be ineligible for the county yard waste rebate. 2. Yard waste drop-off facility Under this alternative, the city would contract with a hauler or other entity to establish and operate a drop-off facility for residential yard waste. Residents would have the option of "market rate" pick up program or the drop off. The advantages of this approach include the followin~g• ® Residents would have an alternative to paying their haulers to pick up yard waste. ® This approach would qualify for the county rebate. ® Some residents may be encouraged to initiate backyard composting in lieu of hauling the leaves to a drop-off spot. The disadvantages of this approach include the followincr ® Administrative costs for the city could be substantial. ® Locating a spot for such a facility could be difficult. ® Site security (to prevent "after hours" dumping and/or disposal of inappropriate materials) may be difficult to achieve. ® Residential traffic in and out of the facility could be heavy. 3. In-town compost facility This alternative would involve siting a compost facility in Richfield for residential use. This is the same as option 3 but site would be located within the city. Advantages of this approach include the following: ® This activit would y qualify for the county rebate. ® Residents would have an alternative to paying for yard waste pick-up. ® It is a convenient alternative for residents. ® It could help curtail illegal dumping. ® Finished compost could be made available to interested residents. Disadvantages of this approach include: ® Locating a site for a compost facility would be very difficult. ® The city would either need to contract for service or devote staff time to operate and maintain the site. ® Site security may be difficult to achieve. 4. Utility Rebate This alternative would involve rebating citizens the county yard waste money via their water or other utility bill. The advantages of thi_s_alternative include the followina• ® It returns the yard waste rebate directly to residents, while allowing the current system to continue functioning. Equity is achieved. All residents, regardless of their chosen method of yard waste management, receive the rebate. ® It should qualify as an eligible activity for the county rebate. The disadvantages of this alternative include the followina: ® Some residents may not understand the reason for the rebate. ® It may be difficult to administer. Discussion/Decision Mode: This item has been placed on the August study session agenda for discussion purposes. Respectf ly submitted, Jame Prosser City anager JDP:ds CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA Study Session Letter No. 24 Agenda. August 6, 1990 Issue Statement• Policy. and Strategy Recommendations for Airport Related Issues. Background• The Richfield Airport Strategy Group has met and reviewed issues and events related to the airport. RASG has provided recommendations for policy and strategy implementation. Recent developments regarding the airport include the following: • Tracking A Decision Video Tape. The video tape was shown at the RASG meeting held on July 19, 1990 for feedback and any final changes that should be made. Overall, the group felt the video tape was extremely well done and it effectively accomplished the purposes of the project. The purposes of video tape included: 1. Increasing the general public awareness of the airport dual track planning process. 2. Expressing the need to develop a more solid framework in determining the future airport needs for this region. 3. Introduce the need for interactive community planning at MSP with the surrounding communities. There were a few changes recommended by the group which were incorporated into the final version of the video tape. A communications plan was suggested by the group for wide distribution of the video tape. A copy of the suggestions is enclosed. • State Advisory Council on Airport Planning. Council Member Edwina Garcia testified before the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning on July 24, 1990. Representatives from the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, Bloomington, Eagan and Mendota Heights were asked to present their community positions on airport development options that are being proposed in the dual track planning process. At the RASG meeting, members suggested a strategy for the City to use in preparing testimony for the meeting. Enclosed is a copy of the letter inviting the MSP surrounding cities to participate in the meeting and the written testimony presented by Council Member Edwina Garcia. • Extension of Runway 4/22. On July 16, 1990, the City of Richfield received a letter from MnDOT in regards to amending the Scoping Decision Document the agency issued on June 30, 1989 which identified the scope of alternatives and issues to be studied in the EIS for the proposed extension of Runway 4/22 at MSP. The amendments are a result of the FAA's decision on June 5, 1990 to implement the RUS as a permanent operating system at MSP. A copy of the letter from MnDOT is enclosed explaining the changes. • N.O.I.S.E. Conference. Don Priebe was authorized by the City of Richfield to attend the National Organization to Insure a Sound-controlled Environment (N.O.I.S.E.) Conference, July 18-21, 1990 in Tempe, Arizona. The topics of discussion included: 1. The DOT's 1990 National Transportation Policy; 2. The three "legs" of a noise solution (end Stage iI aircraft by 2000, no new noise actions by airports and preemption of local land use authority within the 65 dbDN); 3. Local efforts to deal with airport noise; 4. Discussion of the LDN noise metric. Mr. Priebe was a representative to the City of Richfield acting as a voting member on all matters of policy considered at the conference. He was replacing Council Member Michael Sandahl, Richfield's N.O.I.S.E. Member, who was unable to attend. Recommended Motion: With this background, the following recommendations are provided to address these issues: • Tracking A Decision Video Tape The final version of the video tape will be shown at the August 6, 1990 Council Study Session. The RASG members recommended the following communications plan to distribute the video tape: 1. Send copies to everyone who participated in the video tape accompanied by a letter from the Mayor; 2. Send the video tape to various state agencies and organizations working on airport related issues accompanied by a letter from the Mayor; 3. Identify service clubs to present the video. A representative from the City of Richfield will introduce and answer. questions following the presentation of the video tape to the group; 4. Air the video on the regional cable access and government channels throughout the metropolitan area and state; 5. Set-up a meeting with chambers of commerce and convention bureaus from Bloomington, Richfield, Minneapolis and St. Paul to ask for their assistance in developing a metropolitan and statewide distribution plan and commercial interest. • State Advisory Council on Airport Planning. Council Member Edwina Garcia will give a report of the State Advisory Council meeting held on July 24, 1990. • Extension of Runway 4/22.. At the RASG meeting, the letter was studied and the group recommended that the City of Richfield should send a letter to MnDOT asking for clarification on a some confusing issues. A copy of a letter sent to MnDOT from the City is enclosed. • N.O.I.S.E. Conference. Don Priebe will report the policy issues discussed and voted on at the conference. Alternative Recommendation: A variety of alternative recommendations may be discussed at the August 6, 1990 Study Session. Discussion/Decision Mode: These matters will be discussed at the August 6, 1990 Study Session. Respectfully submitted, Ci . Prosser JDP:kab Enclosures TRACKING A DECISION AIRPORT VIDEO COMMUNICATION PLAN Distribution Strategy: • Send copies to everyone who participated in the video tape accompanied by a letter from the Mayor. • Set-up a meeting with chamber of commerces and convention bureaus from Bloomington, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Richfield to ask for their assistance developing a metropolitan and state-wide distribution plan and commercial interest. • Send to various state agencies/organizations working on airport related issues accompanied by a letter from the Mayor. • Identify service clubs to present the video tape. A representative from the City of Richfield will introduce and answer questions following the presentation of the video tape. • Air the video on the regional cable access and government channels throughout the metropolitan region and outstate Minnesota. Television and Cable Channels: 1. KTCA, Channel 2 2. Regional Channel 6 3. Metropolitan Area Cable Government Channels Paragon Cable Northwest Community Television Corporation Nortel Cable Television Cable Television North Central Minneapolis Television Network 4. Outstate Cable Government Channels Airport Related Agencies/Organizations: 1. Chamber of Commerces Don Groen, President and Chief Operating Officer Bloomington Chamber of Commerce 9801 Dupont Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 Connie Levi, President Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce 81 South Ninth Street, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Rick Hadley, President St. Paul Chamber of Commerce 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 John Kenealy, Executive Secretary Richfield Chamber of Commerce 6637 Lyndale Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 2. Convention Bureaus Bonnie Carlson, Executive Director Bloomington Convention & Visitors Bureau 9801 Dupont Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55420 Greg Ortale, President and Chief Operating Officer Greater Minneapolis Convention & Visitors Bureau 1219 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 John Fisher, Executive Director St. Paul Convention Bureau 600 NCL Tower 445 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 3. State Government Governor Rudy Perpich Governor's Office State Capitol St. Paul, MN 551.55 Commissioner Lani Kawamura State Planning Agency 300 Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 4. Metropolitan Council Steve Keefe, Chair Gertrude Ulrich Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 5. Metropolitan Airports Commission Jeff Hamiel, Executive Director 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55111 6. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Frank Benson, Manager Airports District Office 6020 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55111 7. Minnesota Department of Transportation Richard Theisen, Project Manager Transportation Building St. Paul, MN 55155 8. Northwest Airlines Bob Gibbons, Media Relations Director 2700 Lone Oak Parkway Eagan, MN 55121 9. City of Bloomington Larry Lee, Community Development Director 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, MN 55431 l0. Citizen's League Curtis Johnson, Executive Director 708 South~Third Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 11. Senator Rudy Boschwitz United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 12. Senator Dave Durenberger United States Senate 154 Russell Office Building Washington, DC 2051.0 13. Representative Joyce Henry House of Representatives, District 40B 323 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 14. Representative Chris Tiornhom House of Representatives, District 40A 239 State Office Building St. .Paul, MN 55155 15. Congress Members for Minnesota *Congressman Martin Sabo United States Congress 2201 Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Timothy Penny United States Congress 436 Cannon Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Vin Weber United States Congress 106 Cannon Office Building Washington,. DC 20515 Congressman William Frenzel United States Congress 1026 Longworth Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Bruce Vento United States Congress 2304 Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Gerry Sikorski United States Congress 4.14 Cannon Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman Arlan Strangeland United States Congress 2245 Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Congressman James Oberstar United States Congress Washington, DC 20515 16. Hennepin County Commissioners Randall Johnson 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 17. Senator Michael Freeman Minnesota Senate, District 40 122 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 18. House Subcommittee on Air Transportation Representative Bernie Lieder, Chair Subcommittee on Air Transportation of the House Transportation Committee 527 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 19. Senate Committee on Local and Urban Government Senator Robert Schmitz, Chair Room 107 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 20. Minnesota Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning Senator Keith Langseth, Co-chair Minnesota Senate G-24 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 (Representative Bernie Lieder, Co-chair) 21. University of Minnesota Dick Braun Transportation Center Center for Transportation Studies 500 Pillsbury Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455 22. MASAC Scott Bunin, Chair Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 23. City of Minneapolis Council Member Steve Cramer 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 ~ ~ ~ MINNESOTA ADVISORY COUNCIL ON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT PLANNING Legislators Senator John 14larty Senator Bill Belanger Representative Jean DVagenius Representative Jerry Knickerbocker Public Members Suzanne Sandahl Minneapoiis John T. Richter Minneapolis Eve «ebster Norhrield Al Loehr St. Cloud Hugh Schilling St. Paul Dave Danielson Chisholm State .-igencv Aeads Commissioner Leonard Levine Transportatio n Commissioner Lani Kawamura State Planning Commissioner Gerald Willet ollution Control Metro _-agency Representatives Thomas Holloran MAC Chairman Sam Vrais MAC Commissioner Steve Keefe Council Chairman Donald Stein Counciimember dviation Industry Representatives Tim Thornton Northwest Airlines Craig Hayes Delta Airlines Nonvoting Members Frank Benson Manager. Mp1s. Airport Office Elaine Kienitz Congressional Appointee Stare Council Staff .Jill Schulte ~rn:ur K~search T,,m T~~~i~i Huur 3rsearch P::::::: Hanson itil_1 ^95•:3205 Senator Keith Langseth Co-chair July 9, 1990 Mr. Jim Prosser, City Manager 6700 Portland Avenue Richfield, MN 55423 Dear Mr. Prosser., Representative Bernie Lieder Co-chair The State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning, created by the Minnesota Legislature as part of the airport dual track planning process, is holding a meeting July 24, 9:00 am to noon, at the Metropolitan Airports Commission headquarters, to hear testimony from the six communities surrounding the airport. Representatives from Minneapolis, St. Paul, Richfield, Eagan, Bloomington and Mendota Heights have all agreed to testify. We would ask each city to limit its tes- timony to 20 minutes and to address the following questions. 1. Does your community support or oppose the physical expansion of the current airport through the addition of one or more runways and the expansion of terminal facilities? Does your community support or oppose the future replacement of the current airport with a new airport at a different site? How does your community's position on a new airport hinge on its location? 2. What does your community stand to gain or lose if the current airport is physically expanded? What does your community stand to gain or lose if the current airport is replaced by a new airport a different site? (Please address the economic impacts.) G-''4 State Capitol. St. Paul, iKV aa155 ~~.,~, 3. If your community were to emphasize three points that it wished policymakers involved in the dual track planning process would remember, what would they be? We are fully aware each of the communities has a great number of other concerns and opinions about current activities at the air- port such as the extension of runway 4-Z2 and the runway usage system. Because of the charge .and focus of this group, we ask that community representatives limit their testimony to the air- port development questions above. We ask that if any of the proposed runway options the MAC is cur- rently considering in its work on the Long term comprehensive plan have specific impacts on your community that you would sup- port or oppose, that you would address these. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, ;' C...~ i S ~ator /Keith Langseth Rep er sentative Bernie Lieder Co-Chair Co-Chair TESTIMONY Impacts of Future Airport Development. Plans on the City of Richfield Statement by Edwina Garcia, Council Member City of Richfield, Minnesota Before the Minnesota Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning Tuesday, July 24, 1990 Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 - 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota Chairpersons and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the potential impacts future airport development plans may have on the city of Richfield. We support the dual track planning process as mandated by the Legislature and wish to participate effectively and actively in the planning process to address future airport needs for the region as a whole. Question 1: s Does your community support or oppose the physical expansion of the current airport through the addition of one or more runways and the extension of terminal facilities? The real issue is not whether we support or oppose the physical expansion of the current airport but how that expansion, if and when necessary, is accomplished. In the past, MAC has developed plans which appear to be accomplished facts with no alternatives. The MAC will need to make capacity enhancements at MSP in the near future. Physical expansion plans, when needed, could have adverse environmental impacts on the airport border communities. We are asking that these cities and the MAC develop an interactive community planning process now to collaboratively identify agreeable measures to mitigate any adverse impacts which may occur. We would like to have the interactive community planning process include the following steps. First, the MAC should identify all capacity enhancement options such as building - 1 - additional runways and a terminal. The MAC would provide all the technically acceptable options available for MSP to be reviewed by the surrounding cities. The second step would involve all the surrounding airport communities and MAC determining the impacts the proposed airport enhancement plans may have on the communities. Every acceptable runway and terminal option must be studied equally to analyze the environmental impacts. Next, the interactive community planning group would develop mitigative measures for each proposal (i.e. sound insulation of buildings and homes, property acquisition), the resources (including cost) associated with each alternative and a timeframe to implement each mitigative measure. At the final step, provide a summary report. assessing the impacts on the surrounding communities of proposed airport plans and alternatives agreed upon by the group representatives. This report would be forwarded together with the MAC capital improvement plan to the legislature. The city of Richfield believes the interactive community planning process should be initiated as soon as possible by the MAC and the deadline for submitting the MAC capital improvement plan to the legislature be extended from January 1, 1991 to June 30, 1991. On June 25, 1990, the Richfield City Council adopted Resolution No. 7644 in support of the interactive community airport planning process (attachment). The city has encouraged all MSP border communities to adopt similar resolutions to - 2 - persuade the MAC to initiate the formation of the planning group to include representatives from all cities surrounding MSP, the MAC, Met Council and the FAA. • Does your community support or oppose the future replacement of the current airport with a new airport at a different site? How does your community's position on a new airport hinge on its location? Again, Richfield supports.. the dual track planning process as mandated by the Legislature in 1989. However, we are concerned that an inadequate framework has been developed in the dual track planning process which includes a complete analysis on airport issues of whether or not the airport should stay or move. This concern of Richfield was shared by the cities of Bloomington, Burnsville, Eden Prairie and Edina. As a result, the five cities initiated a study to explore this issue (attachment). The study was conducted by Mendelsohn Associates, Inc. of Washington D.C. and Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates of Kensington, California and it involved a thorough technical review of_the material produced by the Met Council and MAC. The consultant team held a number of interactive sessions with officials from cooperating cities and airport planning agencies. The study raises questions to be considered as the future airport planning issues are explored throughout the dual track planning process. One question raised is, "Does the region need a new airport?" City officials are concerned that studies by the Met - 3 - ,,. Council and the MAC, which have been conducted and are now in progress, do not yet adequately address this and other major issues. The questions raised in the study are explored in four principal areas: 1. Economic Benefits and Costs 2. Delay/Demand/Capacity 3. Noise Impacts 4. Financial Impacts The study presents and closely examines the findings in these areas. If, after a thorough and unbiased review, the Legislature decides a new airport is needed for the region, Richfield will support this decision. Richfield officials have taken a pro- active and cooperative position on these matters and have shown their commitment to work with others, explore every possible option, negotiate, come to agreement, and move ahead with solutions to airport problems. The city just wants to ensure both tracks are equally and adequately considered in the dual track planning process and an adequate comprehensive framework to _analyze airport issues is developed. While a significant amount of resources have been developed to address Track B, we haven't seen the same priority of resources to use for Track A. Question 2: • What does your community stand to gain or lose if the current airport is physically expanded? What does your community stand to gain or lose if the current airport is replaced by a new airport at a different site? (Economic impacts) - 4 - Moving the airport will have a negative impact on the city of Richfield. No framework has been developed to adequately address the needs of this region. We should not just be addressing the .needs of a specific region but rather the region as a whole. The Mendelsohn/Gillfillan study provides a framework to follow. The city of Richfield believes the analysis of the economic benefits and costs of establishing a new airport and the closure and reuse of the existing MSP airport has not been sufficiently studied. Analyzing the economic benefits and costs of establishing a new airport for the metropolitan area is a complex task. The need for a thorough review to examine the economic flows associated with both the construction and operation of a new facility and the closure and reuse of the existing facility is of vital importance. In addition, no evidence exists which illustrates that the long-term economic impact of establishing a new airport to replace MSP would generate a positive net benefit to the region or state. A review of previous assessments of the current airport facility and proposed alternative plans has revealed the studies do not include a full and properly scoped economic analysis. The review process made by the Mendelsohn/Gillfillan study found no evidence showing the long-term economic impact of building a new airport to replace MSP would generate greater economic growth for the region. The assumption that economic losses to the current MSP site would equal economic gains to the new area has not been thoroughly examined. - 5 - The study conducted by Mendelsohn/Gillfillan provides a framework to use in analyzing the economic benefits and costs of both tracks in the dual track planning process. There will be economic impacts on Richfield and surrounding communities by expanding MSP but these impacts have not been addressed. We do not know at this time what the benefits and costs of moving the airport to a different location will have on the city of Richfield. In order to address these questions, the legislature needs to look at the needs of the region as a whole. Question 3: • If your community were to emphasize three points that it wished policymakers involved in the dual track planning process would remember, what would they be? 1. The decision regarding the mitigation of current adverse environmental impacts on communities surrounding MSP must be made now. There are Richfield neighborhoods located near the airport that are increasingly subjected to pressures incompatible with residential use. The New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods, located on the extreme eastern edge of Richfield immediately adjacent to MSP, where adverse impacts on the residents are already severe and promise to become-worse as a result of growing airport operations. As a result, Richfield city officials have amended the comprehensive land use plans to be compatible with surrounding adverse environmental impacts. The new plan for New Ford Town calls for hotel/motel, dining/entertainment, retail, wholesale, - 6 - offices and light industrial. It is the intention of the city to pursue complete redevelopment of the area in order to relocate the current residents. We, like the residents in these neighborhoods are uncertain about the future of their area because of proposed capacity enhancement plans at MSP and wish to be relocated as a result of negative environmental impacts. By pursuing changes in the comprehensive land use plans for neighborhoods near MSP for future business development, Richfield has added new possibilities for the property owners in these areas. By encouraging a change in land use, the city has increased the likelihood that some sort of redevelopment will occur there. The residents don't want to wait 10-15 years for a solution. Whether the airport is moved or not, some actions need to be made now. 2. Airport planning must include discussions with surrounding cities. The MAC will continue to make capacity enhancements at MSP and these enhancement plans will have adverse environmental impacts on these communities. It is necessary for the MAC and these communities to develop a process that collaboratively identifies agreeable measures to mitigate any negative environmental impacts. Even if a decision is made by the legislature in 1997 to build a new airport for this region, it will take at least 20 years to build. In the meantime, MSP border communities will still need to alleviate the environmental impacts from the airport and the need for interactive community airport planning will be necessary. - 7 - r 3. The study conducted for the cities of Bloomington, Richfield, Eden Prairie, Edina and Burnsville by Mendelsohn Associates, Inc. and Walter E. Gillfillan and Associates raises important questions that should be considered as future airport planning issues are explored. We support a more solid framework for determining the future of the airport. Attachments: Resolution Expressing Support for Collaborative Community Airport Planning Process Resolution No. 7644, City of Richfield The Future of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Study, conducted by Mendelsohn/Gillfillan - 8 - ~`~NNESpT,9 ~~ ZO a o~ t~`iy~ ~Q OF TRP~ July 16, 1990 To Whom It May Concern: Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation 8uildir,g, St. Paul, MN 55155 MINNE50'IA 1990 On June 30, 1989, the Minnesota Department. of Transportation (MnDOT), issued a Scoping Decision Document to identify the scope of alternatives and issues to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) for the proposed extension of Runway 4-22 at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In accordance with Minnesota Rule 4410.2100 subpart 8, MnDOT is amending the Scoping Decision Document in the following ways: 1. The scope of the noise impacts analysis will change to include assumptions using the proposed Runway Use System (RUS) as the existing MSP traffic distribution system used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Air Traffic Control. The original. Scoping Decision Document was based on assumptions using the Preferential Runway System (PRS). The PRS, implemented in 1972, defined independent arrival and departure runway priorities based primarily on population density. The new RUS calls for a balanced, maximized use of the cross runway (04/22) when feasible, rather than on the basis of population density differences at both runway ends. 2. One of the stated purposes of the project will also change, to reflect increased use of the crosswind runway. 3. Revised base year and forecast activity data will be used in the Draft EIS, consistent with the Metropolitan Airport Commission's Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP. The changes relating to the RUS have resulted from 1 }the MAC recommendation to the FAA on February 20, 1990, that the RUS be implemented on a permanent basis, and 2) the FAA decision on June 5, 1990, after completion of environmental review, to implement the RUS as a permanent operating system. Assumptions upon which the noise analysis is prepared will change to reflect the RUS procedures. It is not anticipated that noise impacts will change significantly due to the incorporation of the RUS in the noise analysis of this EIS. However, the noise contours may change somewhat due to new base year and forecast data. No other aspects of the study scope will change. Neither the proposed project itself, its alternatives nor the potential environmental impact issues will change. For further information contact Richard Theisen, Project Manager, Room 417 Transportation Building, St. Paul, Mn 55155, telephone (612) 296-2552. Sincerely, _ /~ ~, i/ ~' ~ _~ Dou~s H. Dille Depr'ity Commia'~ioner City of Richfield • 6700 Portland Avenue • Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager Mayor James D. Prosser Steve Quam July 27, 1990 Council Edwina Garcia Ivan Ludeman Martin Kirsch Michael Sandahl Mr. Douglas H. Differt Deputy Commissioner Minnesota Department of Transportation. Transportation Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. Differt: Thank you very much for your communication of July 16. The letter describes amendments to the scoping decision for the proposed runway extension of 4/22 at MSP. The letter raised several issues which require additional information. We are requesting your assistance in providing this information to Richfield on a timely basis. ~~- • The amendment states that the scope of the noise impact analysis will change to include assumptions using the proposed runway use system. Later in this same memo, it is stated that the FAA decided on June 5th will implement the RUS "after completion of environmental review." It is important to know how the RUS was treated by the FAA in their FAA environmental review. Referencing our prior correspondence on this issue, it's obvious that results of the environmental review of the RUS should be reviewed with the public prior to assuming the RUS as a basis for extending 4/22. The assumptions used to evaluate the RUS in the 4/22 EIS. should also be consistent with those used by the FAA and other agencies in the environmental review leading to adoption of the RUS. • The July 16 memo also states the RUS calls for a balanced, maximized use of cross runway when feasible. Use of the term balanced, maximized use is somewhat ambiguous. It's possible that up to 60 departures per hour over south Richfield and Bloomington could be accommodated on a maximized basis. It is not clear how the terms balanced and maximized will be used, but they could be somewhat contradictory. It is important to know whether or not balance will consider type of flights, i.e., departures or arrivals. RUS calls for balanced use of 4/22. Extending 4/22 will most certainly have the impact of increasing the usability of the southwest end of this runway. In essence extending 4/22 creates a new runway use system that has not been evaluated. In essence that means the RUS as designed will not be the operative system. Telephone 861-9700 (612) Fax 861-9749 An Equal Opportunity Employer • One of the new stated purposes of the extension of 4/22 is to reflect increased use of the crosswind runway. It is really not clear what this means. Does this mean that under RUS more take- offs to the southwest will occur? The assumptions regarding the number of departures and arrivals per runway option should be spelled out specifically. If the departures and arrivals are different than described in the Part 150 study we need to know what the new contour area is and whether or not the extended area will be eligible for Part 150 funding. • The memo states that the revised base year and forecast activity will be used consistent with Metropolitan Airports Commission's Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP. It is necessary to know what the revised base year will be. The MAC Long Term Plan includes forecasts for 1993 to 2008. It is appropriate to determine what the base year selected by MnDOT for the study will be and for what year the forecast activity will be made. As a practical matter the City of Richfield needs new noise contours and the basis for those contours as soon as possible in order to evaluate the changes in the scoping study outlined in the July 16 letter. We also need to see a single event analysis for the 4/22 extension. We look forward to receiving this information on a timely basis. Please contact us at your earliest convenience with the schedule for when this information will be available. Sincerely, ~-~ James-` D. Prosser Cit~Manager JDP:ds cc: Mayor Steve Quam City Council