88-462 WHITE - CITY CLERK
PINK - FINANCE CO�1�1C1I '/
BI.UER� = MqyQp�TMEN7 GITY OF S INT PAUL File NO. ���`�`��
Co ncil esolution
Presented By
r��� �
Referred To Committee: Date
. Out of Committee By Date
WHEREAS, the Waste Management Act f 1980 required that all metro counties
identify landfill sites; and
WHEREAS, the Washington County Boa d of Commissioners proposes a landfill
dump, Site G, within the state and fede ally-funded Lake Elmo Regional Reserve; and
WHEREAS, restrictive covenants for id the use of land in the Lake Elmo
Regional Park . . . "for any other purp se except regional recreational open space
purposes . . . "; and
WHEREAS, the land under Site G is n example of Saint Croix Moraine geo-
logical formation and one of the reason that the park was originally established;
and
WHEREAS, Site G is hydrogeological y unsuitable for a landfill because of
the porous soil and is underlain by sha low bedrock axquifers, including Prairie
du Chien, which serves as an important omestic water supply; and
WHEREAS, a leak of the landfill w ld pose a serious threat to the purity of
that water supply and be potentially h rmful to the citizens who use that water
source; and
WHEREAS, Site G sits on a steep s ope and any surface drainage threatens
contamination of Eagle Point Lake, Lak Elmo, the Valley Branch Watershed Dis-
trict's main stream and potentially th Saint Croix River; and
WHEREAS, the concept of a landfil within the natural surroundings of a des-
ignated park enjoyed by many is an obv ous conflict of interests with potentially
dangerous consequences; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Cit Council opposes the designation of a
landfill dump anywhere within the Lake Elmo Regional Park; and be it
1-
COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Dimond
�� In Favor
Goswitz
Rettman B
�be1bel _ Against Y
Sonnen
Wilson
Form Approv by �ty orney
Adopted by Council: Date
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY
sy �
Approved by Mavor: Date Appr y Mayor for Submi on Co il
By B
WNITE - CITV CIERK �
PINK� - FINANCE COIlI1CII O�G
CANARY - DE�ARTMENT G I TY OF S I NT PAU L /y n ��
BLUE a MAVp� File NO. �+ "
Council esolution
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Saint Pa 1 City Council opposes consideration of
parks as potential landfill sites and th s also opposes the expenditure of public
funds to determine environmental suitabi ity of such sites; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Cle k is directed to send copies of this
resolution to the Metropolitan Council a d the Washington County Board of
Commissioners.
2-
COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Dimond
Lo� In Favor
Goswitz
Rettman Ca
��;�� _ Against BY
s�ee�
Wilson
Adopted by Council: Date APR � 5 ��v� Form Approve Att ney
Certified Pa_s y n '1 Se tar By
By , �
t�pproved by Mavor: Date Appro by ayor for Su is o Council
B
Approved without the signature of the Mayor � � � 1988
pursuant to Section 6.08 of the City Charter. PUBtiSHED �� __
, , ounci� Research Center_ ��° (%����
' . MAR 2� i� -�° 0135 31 �
City Council DEPARTMENT -
Ma.e SylvesCer CONTACT NAl�
:
�
_ ,
5679 PHONE �
' 3-16-88 -�;�DATE .
ASSIGN NiJMBER FOR ROUTING.OBDER: (See revers side.) �.e� 14�
_ Department Director � Mayor (or Assistant) 3�� �r
_ Finance and Management Services Director � City Clerk
Budget Director �
� City Attorney _
�OTAL NUM�EH OF SIGNAT�TRE PAGES: (Clip 11 locations for signature.)
T W 0 T ? (Purpo�e/RationaZe}
,
Resolution opposing consideration of parks as potential landfill sites �nd expenditure
of public funds to determine envfranmeat�l su tability of sueh sites
COST B DG D ERS C ANT C T �
�
I C C VI ER C G D
(Mayor's signature not required if under $10, 00.)
Total Amount of Trans�ction: Activity Number: �ECEIVi��
Funding Source: � „
� MAR 17 1988 ,
ATTACAMENTS: (List and number all attachment .) C�TY �T'�"�f,,�����
Letter from city of Lake Elmo requesting the ity of Saint Paul adopt a similar resoluti,on.
AD�IINISTBEITIVE PROCEDURES
_Yes _No Rules, Regulations, Procedur s, or Budget Amendment reQuiredY
_Yes _No If yes, are they or timetabl attached?
�DEPARTMENT REVZEW CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW
_Yes _i�o Council resolution required? Resolution required? _Yes No
_Yes _No Insurance required? Insurance sufficient7 _Yes No
Yes No Insurance afitached?
� = - � 1���-���
"' CI7Y OF
� LAKE
ELMO .
City of Lake Imo 777-5510
3800 Laverne Avenue North/Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042
February 22 , 1988 �
�
The Honorable James Sche bel ��� Z,� ��
President, Saint Paul Ci y Council
Seventh Floor, City Hall COUNCII.MP.*1
Saint Paul, MN 55101 ;1;;in;�s SC���t3�L
Dear President Scheibel:
Steve DeLapp, a voluntee with RE-APP (Recycle and
Preserve Parks) and the hair of the Lake Elmo Planning
Commission, has asked th t I follow up on his phone con-
versation with you Frida February 19, 1988. He indicated
to me that you have been following the publicity surrounding
� the Washington County Bo rd of Commissioners proposal to
site a dump within the !� ate and Federally funded Lake
✓�lmo Regional Park Reser e;�
As you know, we have bee soliciting city council
resolutions from cities hroughout the area stat�n�-_ag-
position to this insidio s siting of a dump in a park.
; We are enclosing a sampl resolution that we would
appreciate your submitti g to the Saint Paul City Council.
I appeal to you, Preside t Scheibel, and the full Saint
Paul City Council, to ad pt a similar resolution of
condemnation, and ask th t you send a copy of this resolution
to the Met Council and t e Washington County Board of
Commissioners .
Thank you for your conce n and
Sincerely
Arlyn Christ, Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Lake Elmo City Coun il
RE-APP
' . , �� y��
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO PROTECT LAKE EL 0 REGIONAL PARK RESERVE FROM A DUMP??
What can you do? Several matters re uire prompt attention:
1 ) REAPP ( REcycle And Preserve Park ) is a citizens ' group formed to promot::;
recycling and to keep the landfill ut of the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve . This organization is non-p ofit , incorporated , dedicated , capable
and well-organized , but they need r sources: both personnel and money.
� MoneY contributed by individua s and organizations interested in
protecting the environment wil be used for legal and technical help.
� Membership in the Committee is $10 per year for a family.
� Peo le are needed to hel arou e
_P_ p public awareness, raise money for
expenses , monitor the EIS, and lots of other things .
� Support of both individuals an organizations is important .
REAPP is circulating a petition req esting that the Washington County Board
�- of C�mmissioners not break the rest ictive covenants protecting the Park. We
need literally thousands of signatu es to show that this issue is more than
just of local significance. Please ign the etition .
REAPP meets every Sunday evening .at 8:00 PM in the Lake Elmo City Hall .
Visitors are always welcome.
2) Washington County is currently p eparing an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) and a Scoping Decis ' on, leading to a full Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) , due by the nd of 19$$. It is important that all
interested parties provide a writte record of their opposition to
development of a landfill at Site G in the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve.
Comments should be addressed to
Mr. Zachary Hansen
Washington County De artment of Public Health
14900 61st Street North
P. 0. Box 6
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006
Indicate to REAPP that you are : willing to testify at public hearings
(the first to be in November, 1987) .
3) The final decisions on Site G wil be made first by the Washington County
Commissioners and then by the Metro ouncil and then by the MPCA. All of
these bodies need to hear loudl and often that the eo le do not want a
landfill in the Park. Contact these eople as individuals and as
organizations:
Ms. Sally Evert , Chair Mr. Steve K. efe, Chair Mr. Gerald Willet
Washington County Board Metropolita Council Executive Director
14900 61st Street North 300 Metro S uare Building Pollution Control Agency
P . 0. Box 6 7th and Rob rt Streets 520 Lafayette Road
Stillwater , Minnesota St. Paul , M nnesota St. Paul, Minnesota
55082 55101 55155
For more information , come to a Sund y meeting, or call :
Dan Novak at 770-2264 or Todd Willia s at 777-04�6 .
.
SITE G HISTORY
1969-8� — ��ashington County mapped 11 times during landfill siting processes
1972-82 — Land bought for Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve . State and Federal
grants said land to be used only for park use
1980 — Waste Management Act: all metro counties to find landfill sites
1981 — Site G in Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve one of 12 sites in
Washington County proposed by consultant
— Metro Council letter only to Washington County, saying parkland
� could not be excluded
— Three other metropolitan counties excluded parkland
— All sites but G rejected
1982 — Additional search by Washington County, but no additional sites
1984 — Metro Council searches and fails to find suitable sites
- — Metro Council resolves there are no more sites in, County
— Restrictive covenants to protect the Park signed between Metro
Council and Washington County
, 1985 — Metro Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Policy Plan
calls for a 2 , 494 acre—foot landfill at Site G by 1993
1987 — Recycle And Preserve Parks (REAPP) incorporated to protect the Park
— Reports by Soil and Water Conservation District and by Minnesota
Geological Survey say Site G is a bad site for a landfill
— EAW/EIS begun by Washington County for $500 ,000
ACTI4'ITIES B: RECYCLi AND PRESERVE PA��S ( REAPP) TO SA4'E THE PARK
— Efforts to pass legislation to protect the Park failed
— Efforts to get MPCA and Metro Council to reconsider Site G failed
— Lake Elmo beginning curbside recycling program
— Petition circulated to request upholding of restrictive covenants
— Extensive input of issues for EAW/EIS
— Billboard erected a Park entrance to warn visitors about landfill
— Legal analysis of use of State and Federal monies and of covenants
For more info, call Dan Novak at 770-2264 or Todd Williams at 777-0446
KEEP THE LANDFILL OUT OF THE LAK ELMO REGIONAL PARK RESERVE ! !
The Naste Management Act of 1980 r quired the establishment of an
inventory of sites in the seven coun y metropolitan area for the landfilling
of mixed municipal waste and of demo ition debris . At the present time,
eight sites for MMW landfills remain in this inventory: four in Hennepin
County, three in Anoka County, and o e in Washington County.
The Legislature authorized and app opriated funds for the purchase
and development of the Regional Recr ation Open Space System (as defined in
Minnesota Statutes Sectian 473.351 , ubdivision 1 , paragraph d) .
Two of the landfill inventory site are in parts of that Regional
Recreation Open Spaces System: Site in Bunker Hills Regional Park in
Anoka County and Site G in Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve in Washington
County.
This document discusses the situat on at the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve.
How did Site G in the Lake Elmo Re i nal Park Reserve et into the
inventory?
In 1981 three counties , Carver, He nepin, and Scott, excluded all parkland
right from the beginning of their si ing processes, while the other four
counties did not . Washington County id not exclude Site G in the Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve because, in a etter dated February 17, 1981 , the
Metropolitan Council said parkland c uld not be excluded. The Hetropolitan
Council has confirmed that no simila letters were sent to other counties.
Thus, the exclusion of parkland was pplied in an arbitrary and inconsistent
manner over the metropolitan area.
It is quite clear that the choice f Parks for landfills has followed the
�, proverbial "path of least political esistance" , because Parks have had no
vocal defenders. The Park site was t e only one out of twelve sites in
Washington County under consideratio in 1981 not met by a howl of public
protest. Why? Several possible reaso s: because there were no private
landowners involved ; because everyon thought, "No one will put a landfill
in a Park ! " ; because people figured he City of Lake Elmo would protest for
them. The fact is that eo le did no s eak u until it was too late.
After brief environmental investig tions of all sites in Washington County
over four years , all sites were reje ted except Site G. Existing data
clearly show that the hydrogeology a Site G is worse than other rejected
sites. But because no citizens "rubb d their noses in it" , none of the
bureaucrats have acted on that knowl dge. Thus, Site G in the Lake Elmo
Regional Park Reserve is t�e only si e in Washington County remaining in the
MetroQolitan inventory of proposed 1 ndfill sites .
What are the roblems with Site G in the Lake Elmo Re ional Park Reserve?
Site G is actually in the Park, no just next to it .
Restrictive covenants forbid the u e of land in the Lake Elmo Regional
'� Park Reserve " . . . for any other purpo e except regional recreational open
space purposes . . . " , yet the Metro Co ncil appears determined to break these
covenants to put in a landfill . The reaking of these covenants and the use
of Regional Parks for landfills will set a dangerous precedent for the use
of all other Parks for other purpose : roads , airports , sewer plants , etc .
This precedent will be set for the i definite future, and it will threaten
all 0 en S ace S stem lands and all arkland in the entire state . All
residents should think very carefull about whether you want your favorite
Park turned into a dump.
The breaking of these covenants an the use of Regional Parks for
landfills will seriously jeopardize the current favorable relationship
between the governmental units on the one hand , and "willing private
sellers" on the other. Possibilities for future donations or economical
purchase of parkland will be dramatically reduced throughout the State .
By the end of 1987, almost $10 , 000 ,000 will have been spent on acquisition
and development just of the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve and its
facilities and access roads ; millions more have been spent on other parks .
It is in the best interests of the residents of this State to protect this
investment and forbid the siting of landfills in these parks.
Both near and long term environmental consequences of landfills in Parks
will be very undesirable . Environmental degradation always accompanies the
ongoing operation of a landfill , due to truck and equipment traffic , noise ,
smells , litter and visual blight . T.his degradation is the antithesis of the
very idea of parks. The mere thought of a landfill in a Par� is anathema.
And, in the case of Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve, there are very
disturbing specific conflicts between landfill and park operatior.s .
Site G is upwind from areas of the Park with expected high use. Thus,
picnicers, hikers, bikers, campers, and skiers will all be oppressed by the
sight, noise, smells and dust of the landfill. Because the site is on the
sloping, western shore of Eagle Point Lake, it will be clearly visible from
major park facilities such as a large campground, picnic areas , and numerous
hiking and ski trails. Trails will be blocked off, because they go through
the landfill area. Part of the Metropolitan Bicycle Trails system pas;ses
next to the landfill site , using roads which will be the access routes for
garbage trucks . The landfill will •literally be the biggest "attraction" in
the Park.
The land in Site G is currently being used for a native prairie
restoration project, with 60 acres having been seeded 5 years ago and with
expansion planned to 120 acres . All of that land is in Site G and will be
destroyed by the landfill . The land under Site G is an example of the St .
Croix Moraine geological formation. The presence of this formation is cited
as one of the reasons for establishing the Park in the first place. Yet ,
that formation will be destroyed by excavation for the landfill. Because of
the large size of the landfill , its development will force the loss of
Reserve status for the Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve. Thus , what started
as a laudable attempt to save some beautiful land and water for natural
enviror_mental protection may win� up as a highly develope� "city" park.
The subsurface hydrogeology of Site G is clearly unsuited for a landfill .
Reports have been written by the Soil and Water Conservation District and by
the Minnesota Geological Survey. These reports concur that the soils are
very porous, offering almost no barrier to the migration of contaminants
from a landfill. In addition, the Site is underlain by shallow bedrock
, �aquifers , including the Prairie du Chien aquifer, which serve as important
domestic water supplies . In addition, Site G is on the banks of a buried
river valley, which would serve as a high speed conduit for the rapid spread
of contamination from the landfill.
Site G is on a steep slope , draining into Eag1e Point Lake . Any overflow
surface drainage from the landfill will contaminate that lake: Thus, when
(not if) the landfill leaks , there is a near certainty that extensive
surface and groundwater pollution will occur , contaminating Eagle Point
Lake, Lake Elmo , and the rest of the Valley Branch Watershed District 's Main
Stem all the way to the St . Croix River , contaminating wells in the Park and
at nearby homes , and otherwise seriously disrupting Park operations .
The Metro Council claims that a landfill can °be returned to Park use once
the site is closed . In fact , however, land once used for a landfill can not
. . , , ��y�6a
be simply covered over and used for a Park. Groundwater monitoring must
continue indefinitely, and remedial cleanup measures are totally
incompatible with Park uses . The La e Jane landfill in Lake Elmo was
supposed to be returned to Park use. But because of pollution problems
large parts of the site will remain indefinitely "off limits" , surrounded by
a high fence , and completely useles . The conclusion is clear: if the
landfill goes in Site G , that land an never be safely returned to Park use .
What is the current status of the i sue?
In 1985 the Metropolitan Council ' Solid Waste Management Development
Guide/Policy Plan called for the de elo ment of a landfill at Site G in the
Lake Elmo Regional Park Reserve by he year 1993. This landfill will have a
capacity of 2494 acre—feet , with an actual fill area of about 100 acres and
a "buffer" area of about 200 more a res .
In early 1987 many concerned citi ens met and formed the Lake Elmo
Citizens Advisory Committee, now in orporated as Recycle And Preserve Parks
( REAPP) . The goal of this group is o protect the Lake Elmo Regional Park
Reserve, and ultimately all parks, rom being ruined by a landfill. REAPP
attempted to get legislation passed to keep landfills out of parks , but the
attempt failed. REAPP met with staf of the Metro Council and of the MPCA to
get them to reconsider their earlie decisions , but that attempt failed
also. REAPP has erected a billboard at the entrance to the Park, warning
users about the landfill and reques ing their help.
Washington County is now working n the environmental impact statement
(EIS) process , which is supposed to expose all the potential problems. REAPP
is working to be sure all the relev nt facts and problems are adequately
addressed in the EIS. You have prob bly heard some say, "If the site is so
bad , then the (EIS) process will ta e care of it. " In fact, the EIS is only
a fact—finding document ; it does not make any decisions. In fact , the rules
of the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) , which oversees all EIS documents ,
clearly state, "Environmental documents shall not be used to justify a
decision, nor shall indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily
require that a project be disapproved. " Even when the EIS confirms that the
hydrogeology of a Site is unsuitable, the MPCA is positioning itself as
being able to provide an "engineered solution" to any and all problems .
The MPCA routinely says that liner and� leachate collect?on systems will
take care of any hydrogeological con erns . Unfortunately, this view is quite
overly optimistic, since the US Envi onmental Protection Agency (EPA) says
tha.t all liners and collection syste s leak! It is just a matter of time ,
then, before the pollution timebomb f this landfill explodes , causing
severe environmental damage . There i no natural protection against
pollution offered by the soils at th ' s site. Even the Metro Council
recognizes that problems will occur , when they say, "Technology alone should
not be deemed sufficient to protect round— and surface waters . TM
You might say. "If the landfill do sn 't go into the Park, where will it
go? Washington County just doesn 't w nt to take care of its own garbage. "
In fact , the situation is just the o posite. Any landfill developed in
Washington County will be filled by our times as much garbage from Ramsey
County as from Washington County. Ra se County has no landfill sites in the
inventory. The City of Lake Elmo in ashington County was earlier considered
as a site for a mass burn incinerato for Ramsey and Washington Counties.
The City of Newport in Washington Co nty is now the site of a Refuse Derived
Fuel ( RDF) plant to serve Ramsey and Washington Counties . Washington Coanty
has been praised by the Ftetro Counci as being a leader in recycling and
composting efforts , The City of Lake Elmo has the sad distinction of
, �
containing the leaking Lake Jane Landfill , the first landfill permitted by
the MPCA. Lake Elmo is also instituting a City—wide recycling and yard waste
collection system. So, Washington County and Lake Elmo have done and are
doing their part to solve the solid waste crisis .
Ironically, the Legislature removed the Counties ` options to "take care of
their own garbage" with the Waste Management Act of 1980 . In fact, the
landfills proposed for Regional Parks must accept waste from the entire
Metropolitan area. In fact , the Waste Management Act of 1980 perhaps
decreased the incentive to establish local resource recovery and waste
abatement. After all , why should a City or County bother being a leader in
reducing their own waste, when they know they will just get someone else 's
garbage anyway? In spite of this temptation, remember that Washington County
and Lake Elmo are leaders in solid waste reduction.
It just does not make sense to put a landfill in a Park !
Every person to whom we have spoken agrees that they do not want landfills
in parks . It was not the Legislature 's intent to put landfills in Regional
Parks , but the siting process was and is imperfect. This issue is truly non—
partisan, and one in which we all should be involved. We can all agree that
there will always be some need for landfills , but we can also agree that
landfills do not belong in Parks;
Parks for which we all have paid with fees and taxes , which we all enjoy,
and which help give Minnesota and the Metropolitan Area an attractive and
unique quality of life.
For more information , contact the Co—Chairmen of REAPP:
Dan Novak at 770-2264 or Todd Williams at 777-0446