Agenda - Council - 06/12/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I DATE: TO: FROM: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-291-6359 SUBJECT: June 4, 1984 Metropol i tan Systems Con~i ttee Environmental Planning (Karl Burandt) Comprehensive Planning (Norm Werner) Metropolitan Waste Control Comission 1984 to 1988 Development Program Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 11989-1 INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Waste Control Comission' (MWCC) has adopted a 1984 to 1988 Development Program which, together with items from the 1982-1986 and 1978-1982 Development Program, provide the program elements to be performed by the MWCC in implementing the Council°s Policy Plan. In addition, the Metropolitan Council will consider changes to the Water Resources Management Development Guide (WRMDG) for Point Source Wastewater discharge at its meeting of June 19, 1984, to provide consistency to the MWCC Development Program. The Policy Plan specifies procedures that the Council will use in handling reviews of MWCC requests. Procedure No. 3 covers the Development Program and describes the review schedule and the required content of the program. The content is prescribed by the Metropolitan Reorganization Act. The Policy Plan expands and adds other requirements. There are nine items that the MWCC must analyze for any improvements proposed in a Development Program: 1. Design standards of all proposed projects should be identified; 2. Relationship of each proposed project to the approved local sewer policy plan of affected local units of government; 3. A description of the improvement, its location, function and estimated cost; 4. Proposed manner of financing capital costs and sources of revenue; 5. An annual schedule of land acquisition, and construction and capital expenditures for such improvement; A review of the need and alternatives to the proposed improvement, the environmental and social effects, and all actions and steps taken by the MWCC with respect to the improvement; 7. Estimate of probable impact of the proposed improvement on the responsibilities of other metropolitan comissions; 8. Estimate of annual operating costs and sources of revenue for each improvement; and 9. Evaluation of the relative priority of the improvement.