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

Home

i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I 1. A descriplion of the pro),;cl a~;d why it is needed. 2. I';sti]nated cost. 3. The financing program m.c~.ssary to meet the costs. If borrowin~ is included in the financing program, the schedule of debt retirement, estimated in,rest rates and projected revenue sources necessa~ to retire the debt, 4. The timing of public hearings, construction and when the facility will be available for use. 5. Estimated ongoing cost for operation and main- tenance of the facility. The Legislature has raised an additional concern: flow do the fnturc plans of the 300-plus governments within this Metropolitan Area fit together? It has stated as follows: The Legislature finds and declares that the local governmental units within the Metropolitan Area are int~'rdependent, that the growth and patterns of urbani×ation within tile Area create the need for additional stat% metropolitan and local public services and facilities and increase the danger of air and water pollntion, and that development in one local governmental unit may affect the provision of regional capital i~nprovements for sewers, trans- portation, airports and regional recreation open space. Since problems of urbanization and devel- opment transcend local governmental boundaries, there is a need for the adoption of coordinated phms, programs and eontrols by all local govern- mental units and school districts in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Metropolitan Area and to ensure coordinated, orderly and economic development. Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.851 (1980). Therefore, when the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation and the metropolitan operating agencies for airports, transit, waste control, and parks and open space prepare development programs and capital improvement programs, local government officials should examine them for interrelationships: -- Will highway improvements provide improved access for local citizens and businesses? -- Will other highway improvements force existing commercial and industrial traffic through local residential areas? -- Will the community's handicapped, elderly and lower-income people (as well as regular commuters) find necessary transit available? -- Will local land developers find that planned sewer facilities will meet their needs? -- Will the regional sewer interceptor and sewage treatment facilities be able to handle the city's industrial needs? -- If the city operates its own sewage treatment facility, should its capacity be exp. anded t6 meet future needs, or should access to metropolitan service be provided? Will metropolitan facilities be available to meet the local schedule? -- What impact will regional park and airport service expans}ons have on local citizens? There are two, sometimes conflicting, impacts. The first is the 'citizens' use of the service. The second is the 3 in,par! or lhe facilities on the citizens' pt'ace, tr:mquility and property rights. Interrelationships xvork both ways. What impact does your CIP have on the Region, including metropolitan agency development programs and CIPs? The Metro- politan Council won't try to examine each one of the 242 city, county, township and school district CIPs individually but, rather, wilt make some broad generalizations. As more detailed information is received from the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1982, Council staff will update its projections of regional service needs for the years 1990 and 2000. The local needs, as expressed in the sewer plans, transportation plans, park and open space plans, and CIPs of local govern- ments will be carefully weighed to assist in the allocation and in the timing of regional facilities and servic/~s. If City A and City B will require more sewer capacity at interceptor AB in 1986 than planned, there must be discussions among all parties to arrive at an equitable solution. If total sewage treatment needs of the cities using the facilities of interceptor D and treatment plant X cannot be met in some future year, there must be mutual planning leading to a resolution. Transportation planning raises similar concerns. If roadway and interchange capacities will not correlate with local government needs for specific dates in the future, solutions must be "talked out." It's wise for local governments to prepare CIPs that will provide the necessary and pertinent information. Regional policies and projections are being extended to the year 2000. The more precise and timely the local plans, the better planning can be. Keep in mind that buses are designed for a 12-year life, treatment plants for 20, buildings for 50, interceptors for 40 to 50 years. Available financial resources are a major question in implementation of the regional CIPs. Presumably, the current effort of the Reagan administration to con- trol inflation will lead to reductions in the federal share of funding for regional systems. Minnesota's current financial distress may lead to the same result. During most of the 1970s, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided 75 percent of the capital funding for pollution abatement projects. This consisted largely of sewage treatment works improvements, including interceptors. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) paid 15 percent of the cost of improvements eligible for federal funding. This program is currently in effect insofar as money has been appropriated to fund the eligible projects. There is conflicting information about grant funding for future waste control projects. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, in its 1981 to 1986 Development Program, assume 50 percent federal, 15 percent state and 35 percent local cost sharing. --. As federal and state -budgets are adopted, the program will be reviewed.