Agenda - Council - 01/12/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I '1 I I I I I I Some legislators also wanted to prevent a dependence upon one high technology system, that might not work as projected. A compromise was reached when the Legislature passed a bill on solid waste, which included the stipulation that the Metropolitan Council could restrict the area from which a resource recovery facility operator could draw waste but did not permit the Council, or any other government, to dictate where waste within a specific geographic area must be disposed of. I~ues surrounding mandatory disposal were discussed again in the 1977-78 session of the Legislature, but action on mandatory disposal was deferred, along with other issues. During this period the city of Fairmont, MN, wanted to build a resource recovery facility, and wanted the Legisla- ture to grant the city, mandatory disposal authority. Also, some non-metropolitan communities, finding that land- fidis in their areas were losing money, wanted to institute mandatory disposal provisions in order to keep them economically viable. Many other issues pertaining to solid and hazardous waste also were discussed, and at one time approximately three dozen bills had been introduced on related subjects. The Legislature decided to coordinate all the discussion by establishing a joint legislative committee to study several questions and report to the 1980 Legislature. The work was intended to form the foundation of comprehensive action in the 1980 session. The 1980 Legislature enacted a comprehensive solid waste management bill, which included authorization for the Metropolitan Conncil to mandate use of disposal sites starting in 1982. By 1980 it had become clear that resource recovery facil- ities were not going to come into the metropolitan area in the foreseeable future without some form of public assistance. Mandating disposal sites was seen as a way to provide that public support. According to testimony we received, by 1980 the politics of land disposal were starting to become more important in legislative debates over resource recovery. Public oppo- sition was growing, partly due to incidents of pollution from hazardous waste disposal, but also ~;i~lated to concerns about the failure to utilize the energy potential in refuse. During the legislative debate, the Citizens League and others spoke strongly against the use of mandatory disposal -9- provisions as a way to make resource recovery possible. The arguments had less appeal, however, as consensus was build- ing to move away from landfdling as a primary method.o[ disposal. Again, the Legislature compromised on the issue of manda- tory disposal by delaying the authority to implement it until July 1982. The Legislature also took steps to indi- cate its concerns with its u~e! It enumerated several criteria the Metropolitan Council must consider prior to designating and requiring use of a resource recovery facility. It outlined a process the Council must follow before designating and requixing use of such a facility. The process includes an attempt to ['~rst contract with those who would otherwise be required to use such a facility. It established the Legislative Commission on Waste Management to generally oversee implementation of the 1980 Waste Management Act, but to also identify and evaluate alternatives to mandatory disposal. EVIDENCE OF THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH MANDATING USE OF A RESOURCE RECOVERY FAC- ILITY CAN BE FOUND IN MINNEAPOLIS TODAY. Mandating use of a facility makes the operator of that fac- ility a monopoly supplier of disposal services to the com- munity. The implications of this monopoly arrangement, in terms of price for disposal, can be inferred from the recent experience' of Minneapolis when it solicited bids for the operation of its transfer facilities. The city solicited bids on a contract to operate the city- owned transfer stations and dispose of the city's waste area landt'dis. The city received only one bid, however, and the price bid was approximately 60% higher than what the city is currently paying for this service. The reason the city got only one bid is that there is only one company in the region that could operate a transfer facility and also guar- antee access to enough landf'dl space to dispose of five years worth of Minneapolis waste. This company, conse- quently, has monopoly control over the service Minneapolis is seeking. There is no indication that the company submitted a bid that did not represent the cost of providing the service. Still, the availability of only one bid clearly limits the flexibility of the city to negotiate price and service levels. THERE ARE OTHER METHODS OF REDUCING THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE FLOW OF WASTE BE-