Search This Blog

Thursday, June 4, 2015

7 to 2 vote, Washington/Ramsey County to Take Over Private Sector Garbage Processing

3-8-16: Washington/Ramsey County Garbage Processing Plant, 6 Months In; Failing? Counties Refuse to Answer.

8-30-15 update: The board passed the plan with the buyout of Newport plant for a slightly reduced price of $24.4 million instead of the supposedly "binding" $26.4 million from the two year long arbitration battle in court. RRT and their financier Merced Capital have not responded to state how this was possible. The vote passed 6-1 with Washington County Commissioner Gary Kriesel being the only no vote. Aside from his vote here and on May 28th he's never voted against the plan before ie: funding the over $1.8 million (latest figure) to pay for planning the buyout. Kriesel is up for election in 2016 and always campaigns that he's a fiscally responsible with tax dollars. Also note County Debt has Tripled under Commissioner Kriesel's term with not a word, let alone a plan to do anything but apparently kick the can down the road. So be cautious to interpret these votes as anything more than political pandering. Kriesel has not responded to to inquiry regarding these votes for us.

 Also don't forget the real cost of the facility has many strings attached: ie:
***Upfront cost: before anything can begin the RRF needs immediate facility improvements ($6.65 million) to replacing aging equipment and pay for basic renovations. (Under the RRPB document Titled Achieving the Scope through Public or Private Ownership under "Financial Analysis of Options" p. 31 of adobe file)***  (posted this in The $170 Million Dollar Washington/Ramsey County Plan to Take Over Private Sector Garbage Processing)


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evolution of the industry in Washington County:
In the 80s burning garbage in mass burn incinerators was viewed a cure all solution to combat the problem of what was open pit landfill use at the time. The dangers of both practices were not well understood back then. Landfills used little if any liners and water tables were polluted as a result. 

Today the industry has completely reformed. The Minnesota Polution Control Agency ranks Resource Recovery which is really incinerating garbage down to number 3 (MPCA 2010-2030 policy plan). Recycling is promoted and today's safe landfills (picture below) with methane gas recovery are preferred over incinerators by dedicated environmental groups like the Serra Club. The groups fight to stop the dangerous 30 year old technology of trash incinerators. And they've been successful as no new incinerators have been built since 1997 according the their EPA sourced site! According to BioCycle Magazine in 1991 there were 171 incinerators, in 2002 there were 107, and in 2004 there were only 89.

In the 80s the $28/ton cost to sort municipal waste for our relatively small population at the time was considered worth the cost. Especially considering the perceived benefit of generating electricity by burning the sorted garbage (RDF) over putting the waste into landfills. Turns out it's not cost effective and it's not safe. Since day one the Newport facility has promised to become self sustaining according to former WC Commissioner Autumn Lehrke at a 9-20-2012 Cottage Grove City meeting. (we source her whole quote in the article we wrote last year on this issue.)

Local environmentalist are rising up in great number behind advocacy groups like Eureka Recycling ($12 million/yr budget) who addressed this cause specifically in April this year in their two page article and Youtube video titled "Say no to Newport!" 

This Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Article  explains in great detail the local failure of this industry and sums it up best: "...the legal and economic realities of solid waste shifted in a matter of years, and the dream quickly dissolved. Today, incineration is a legacy technology and a financial burden on the municipalities that bought into it"

No Public involvement, no problem:
This take over is happening with little notice to the public and most especially without a public vote. According to the May 2015 Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Board meeting they appeared to intentionally roll this out silently as possible admitting "we didn't get large media attention for the open houses"... Solution: proceed with the takeover anyway.

The rush to approve the buy out so fast was underestimated... we heard mention of the option for years and even wrote about it in a February 2014 article. In November 2014 we were the only ones to report that the Counties spent $850,000 tax dollars  on lawyers to fast track the process smooth as possible. The Cost has now doubled to $1.5 million for these consultants:


Add insult to injury the June 25th and July 23rd meeting have been canceled as covered in the Part 2 article.

County monopoly on the way with hauler mandate:
Included with the $26 million dollar purchase will be a previously unconstitutional "flow control" mandate that all municipal solid waste (MSW) must be delivered to the government owned processing plant. This became legal after a 2007 Supreme Court Decision (United Haulers Ass’n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority) ruled the government can force the private sector waste haulers to deliver only to a Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) just as long as they own it.

Hauler rebates will end:
Currently the private sector MSW handlers charge about $50 a ton at the many convenient local transfer stations in the area where waste is diverted to the nearest safe landfill with methane gas recovery and 1,000+ year liners. Yet if haulers choose to travel down to Newport they are charged $86 a ton and receive a rebate to cover the costly difference  according to the board's May 2015 meeting.  As seen on the Counties graph the cost is expected to soon go to $100 a ton. This cost will transfer to haulers, when the rebate is promised to be discontinued. Who will then pass the cost on to you. 

An independent hauler, who wishes not to be identified, states they were promised the rebate wouldn't end and is found in the material they were given. Which is in conflict with what is being planned as the flow control mandate (aka "waste designation") is their "ultimate implementation" plan that would take at least two years to implement according to the April 23rd meeting on the subject (see p. 8). So that leaves just two years before "all costs could eventually be included in
the tipping fee" in other words... passed on to haulers and their customers.

The massive hole in the Counties mandate scheme:
Consider $100 tipping fee per ton along with the extra fuel and driver costs of hauling all the Ramsey and WC truck loads of waste to the South Washington County Newport facility ONLY. You are looking at a situation even Waste Management  (WM)  called "impossible".  WM is defending themselves in ongoing appeals from a law suit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) who is attempting to enforce a 1985 law that suggests prioritization of delivering all MSW to Resource Recovery Facilities. A task that is truly impossible as many of these plants that existed in the 80s have closed (4rth paragraph). This leaves local haulers having to travel across the entire county to unload or having their transfer stations truck the waste there... clearly not the intent the legislators had in the 80s. At the time they no doubt thought these things would be as revolutionary as the personal computer or cellphone. Also in the 80s, safe 1,000+yr landfill liners and methane gas recovery didn't exist. 

This inconvenience highlights the greatest problem to this oppressive plan: The fact haulers will simply exercise their constitutional right of interstate commerce by delivering to nearby Wisconsin landfills. Which ironically all of them do not have methane gas recovery where as all but one small rural safe landfill that serves the twin cities does. So at the end of the day the Counties are harming the environment more not only by continuing the practice of incineration, but also by keeping waste that would have been contained and harvested for energy out of MN. They acknowledged this obvious certainty in the May 2015 meeting with clear reluctance: 
"-Likely will not capture waste currently leaving State
-Could cause more waste to leave the East Metro"  [umm... yeah!]

The only comment we could obtain was from Zack Hansen the Ramsey County Environmental Health Director who stated waste haulers were "willing to work with the plan." Yes, they are willing to work right past the County over to Wisconsin! 

The great (false) buck pass: "The State forced us to buy it/ subsidize it"
This of course is not true. In February 2014 Ramsey-Washington County Resource Recovery Project Board paid a law firm to write a full report on the laws surrounding RRFs in MN. No where in  the report was a sourced law that requires the RRF use.

On the May 12th County Board agenda on item 12 they source Mn Statute 473 as evidence they are required to do this; however the law is only about having a waste management master plan. The only state law we could find appears to be MN State Statute 473.848 from 1985 to prioritize Resource Recovery Facility use above other options as mentioned in the MPCA law suit in the last segment. At this point the law is not able to be enforced until the case is resolved (thank you constitution).

State Representative Bob Dettmer confirmed: no State Law
we contacted my State Representative, Bob Dettmer, in November 2014 and he was able to use the MN House of Representative's "Research Team".  They responded on December 4th of 2014 that there was and is no MN State Law that mandates the use or subsidizing of Resource Recovery Facilities (RRFs) or the Incinerators they fuel. 

 Minnesota Polution Control Agency (MPCA) confirmed: no State Law and on January 5th, 2015 they replied. They also confirmed there is no law mandating RRFs. The contact was Sigurd Scheurle of the State Planning Director of the MPCA Sustainable materials Management Unit. 

Prepare for massive losses:
In every case we are aware of in MN, costs significantly increase for haulers and tax payers when Government operates Resource Recovery Facilities or  Incinerators. The city of Red Wing's plant was losing $500,000 a year until it closed in 2014 according to a postbulletin.com article. Olmsted County's plant in MN has been losing $1,000,000 a year, also according to a post bulletin article. The Hennepin County plant in MN has been losing $1.8 million a year according to a South Side Pride article. We can go down the line of the remaining waste to energy facilities that are still open in MN (for now) and report the massive yearly losses too. These losses are always attempted to be offset by passing the cost on to haulers. The Newport plant is no exception, they have promised to lower their tipping fees to market levels every contract negotiation and have failed every time since they opened in 1987 reported by Bob Shaw of the Pioneer Press in the article "Time to junk trash-to-energy programs like one in Newport?". 
Their plan in brief review:
Buy a failed and declining 80s technology now considered dangerous; end hauler rebates (to create illusion of cost savings); attempt to force the market on to it; ignore the constitutional right to deliver to Wisconsin to avoid new oppressive system; and watch it play out as another wonderful Government program.

Part 2 of this article is posted discussing the massive cost concerns related to this failed industry and why it is important for you to attend the June 25th meeting July 23rd, August 27th [the meetings were canceled] speak up before the decision is all but decided at the August 27th meeting. A couple great articles to read in the interim are Bob Shaw of the Pioneer Press: "Time to junk trash-to-energy programs like one in Newport?" and "Say no to Newport" by Eureka Recycling.


and
Dismal Recycling investment over last 20+ years compared to the $227 million towards incinerating garbage "for energy" despite the MPCA hierarchy and advice to meet the 75% recycling goal.


Contact your legislators: 

Ramsey County Commissioners:
blake.huffman@co.ramsey.mn.us   651-266-8362
MaryJo.McGuire@co.ramsey.mn.us 651-266-8356
Janice.Rettman@co.ramsey.mn.us 651-266-8360
Toni.Carter@co.ramsey.mn.us 651-266-8364
 Rafael.E.Ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us 651-266-8361
Jim.McDonough@co.ramsey.mn.us 651 266-8365
 Victoria.Reinhardt@co.ramsey.mn.us 651-266-8363

Washington County Commissioners:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6211 
ted.bearth@co.washington.mn.us 651-738-2425 
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6213 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6215 
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6214



Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Cost Overrun Workshop Reveals Cure is Worse than the Disease

From March 25th:

Washington County Government is doing well overall, thanks in large part to the dedicated staff on the front line who come in day in and day out working hard like the rest of us. The streets are plowed, the parks are clean, the libraries are stocked, the jail is secure, public welfare is delivered, on and on we have a great crew working for us. For the most part the same is true as you move up the chain of command to management and leadership of these departments. However, there's an unfortunate oversight that's allowed things to get out of hand in the area of spending of our County tax dollars.

We've been calling for something to be done for the last two years about this problem. It's contributed to the County debt tripling in the period of seven years! Through debt restructuring and some can kicking tax payers have largely avoided the pain of a massive tax increase that usually results from steep spending increases like this. Much like federal debt today. 

However, thanks to your efforts it appears we don't have  to have to wait for the inevitable collapse of the dollar that will one day come at the federal level. You have called and e-mailed your county commissioners and voiced your concerns. On March 17th the County held a workshop to offer the solution to correct the problem of cost overruns. 

Almost weekly we point out either a road or building project that is getting the rubber stamp of approval for "change orders" (see 'Photos' on WCW main fb page). Or as we wrote a couple weeks ago about the cost of the Public Works North Shop reconstruction project increased by up to $3 million dollars AFTER the budget was passed. We as tax payers still don't have any details about the project as to why this happened. The board didn't talk about this project at the workshop. They centered on contractors being at fault for asking for increases... which I'd argue naturally occurs when they realize they get away with requests without being questioned. In two years of following nearly every county board meeting we have not seen one cost overrun request denied or even negotiated down.

Not only that they left out DOZENS of contract overruns in their audit of themselves, blaming contractors. Claiming to have gone back four years they supposedly found the worst contract change orders totaling tens of thousands... we looked back just seven months into 2014  and found far worse cases that never made the list totaling MILLIONS! (see pictures retrieved from our own timeline)
-May 2014 a 30% increase to put an AC unit on the County Sheriff's Office 
-October 2014 25% increase ($274K) to extend to Hardwood Creek Trail in Forest Lake

Due to the County Board's inability to identify their rubber stamp as the culprit of out of control spending naturally the solution was going to be a disaster. True to form, the March 17th workshop has revealed the cure is worse than the disease. 

Part of the County's solution includes idea such as: 
1.) "Less public involvement"; 
2.) Change policy to only require a board vote on changes of $100K or more instead of $50K or more; 
3.) Have larger contingency funds aka: ' over estimate the project cost and report manufactured cost under-runs' 
4.) "limit alternative designs" (likely leaving the expensive option along side a bare bones approach... bad); 

Worst of all is Commissioner Kriesel's comment in the meeting stating "the last thing we want to do is spook you guys" when he was speaking to Don Theisen (director of Public Works), Wayne Sandberg (Deputy Director of Public Works), and Cory Slagle (Transportation Manager). Excuse me? Are you representing the tax payers or basically admitting this workshop was lip service?

On that note, credit should be given to Cory Slagle who was at the meeting. He has done his job well on the side of public relations. When there's a roadway improvement project he oversees he does a great job hosting open houses to listen to the public; releasing updates as they happen not only on a dedicated County web site, but also in detailed presentations to the board. Slagle also publishes itemized costs for the projects so we know exactly how much each item costs. If it's not listed you can shoot him an e-mail and he's happy to respond.

ie: how much is one single light pole for the over $6,000,000 project to update just 3/4 of a mile of CR 21 in Afton? A: About $6,000 to $9,000 per light pole

Details like this are something we could only dream of from Don Theisen who is heading up the Public Works North Shop rebuild; or Jan Lucke who's managing the planning of the Bus Transit corridors in the county where we have no data on how the seemingly random and various cost estimates for the corridor are calculated. 

In December the corridor cost $400 million
In January the Met Council released the Corridor will cost at least $460 million

It's time for for the County Board to start representing the tax payers that elected them. When a project manager like Theisen comes to the board with information that the approved budget of $17.5 mil for the North Shop is not enough we don't need "we trust your judgement"... Tax payers need a strong advocate, that's why we elected you.

Contact your county commissioners to demand better oversight:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6211 
ted.bearth@co.washington.mn.us 651-738-2425 
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6213 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6215 
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6214





County Mistake Leads to $165,000 Settlement Paid by Forest Lake

In July of 2014 we covered how the County State Aid Highway 2/ Broadway ave road Project in Forest Lake was $2.5 Million dollars over budget. It was managed by the Washington County Public Works Department.

 What would become a $18.9 million dollar project was sighted by the County as the "mega project". The bulk of what was included was a rebuilt crossing over Interstate 35, a new interchange with Broadway ave and I-35, two pedestrian bridges, a roundabout at highway 61, and widening Broadway ave. It was recently completed.

 In early April we became aware that the city of Forest Lake had a closed meeting on March 30th regarding a law suit over an eminent domain dispute that began in 2010. The vote was 4 to 1 to award Nightingale Partners (White Castle) and Forest Lake Enterprises (Culvers) parcels $165,000 Forest Lake tax dollars. (White Castle won the money, but has to split it with Culvers) Michael Freer, was the Forest Lake City Council member to not vote in favor of the settlement stating in an email to me on May 3rd:

 "I was the councilmember who voted against the settlement.  I don't believe the amount of money given to these residents/businesses who willing to push a little bit.  I am willing to spend more money defending ourselves versus giving out large sums of taxpayer money for nothing.  The settlement are a result of the use of eminent domain.  It is used too freely and has caused the large settlements that we see in Forest Lake.  Hope this helps a little bit."

 we asked Freer, "Are you saying the cost to Forest Lake was $165,000 for this settlement for the mistake the County made?"  Freer replied, "essentially, yes" we contacted all the other Forest Lake City Councilors for comment and in an e-mail from Ben Winnick on May 16th confirmed Forest Lake paid the $165,000 in damages for the County's eminent domain mistake with the County covering the unknown cost for the legal fees over this five year dispute (over a hundred thousand?):

 "My understanding is we paid 165k but obviously that was not just a random number.  The amount derived from previous negotiations it would have cost us more to fight it than to settle as the court system had already set a number of 160k.  That only left us the option of the 5k or the cost of the lawyers.  The city had to pay that part of the cost but the county has been paying the legal fees. "

 Consider what $165,000 is for a small town: Forest Lake has a budget of $8.35 million for 2015 and announced they were cutting their fire inspector despite having to increase the city taxes in this Forest Lake Times article written by Ryan Howard. Equate that to real terms by taking off some zeros... Consider a family of four having a combined household income of $83,500 a year and having to come up with $1,650 to pay for a mistake they didn't even make. That's why this should matter to Forest Lake residents and County residents who see no consequences for the County's cost overruns and damages in law suits. They appear completely disconnected via lack of media scrutiny or concern by the elected County Board officials that should care. Evidenced by this article content and others such as: Cost Overrun Worshop Reveals Cure is Worse than the Disease

 we attempted to review the County data on the settlement and what the details of the case were and what the lawyer fees for five years of council cost; but was met with stern opposition by the Assistant County Attorney Richard Hodsdon. Over a month of back and forth with Hodsdon stating everything from all out refusal (initially) and claims of "Attorney Client Privilege" was issued to me denying access to the details of the case. Finally on May 18th we were allowed to view only seven pages (see the pictures we were allowed to take below). Of course my only option to review this data was to literally physically go into the Washington County Government Center at a time of the County's convenience to see these seven pages of public data. When we asked to see please see just the part of the case that described the "arguments" of both parties we were told yesterday 5-26 to refer to a letter they mailed to me... which turns out to be an address they assumed we received mail at. Either way, who responds to an e-mail question with snail mail? Copy and paste the few paragraphs from the case and let the public know your mistake that is costing us our tax dollars.
If you use any of my pictures below that we took please provide me as the source with the direct link to the article. Copyright laws allow filing photos and articles up to 90 days after a violation so please respectfully fully source or consider Copyright pending. Thanks for sourcing!














Monday, May 18, 2015

County Parking Lot Repave Goes $1.1 Million Over Budget

In June of 2013 Washington County on a new $2.5 million dollar parking lot re-pavement project at the County Government Center in Stillwater. We covered the story at the time highlighting the fact even $2.5 million seemed excessive as the pavement did not appear that bad (see pictures).

 Over the next year the County Board unanimously approved additional upgrades that totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars in added costs. Initially the Board seemed to have a moment of common sense, realizing a facility that is not open at night and that has a sheriff's department attached does not need $300,000 in outdoor lighting (p.10 of July 9th 2013 board minutes). However, this was short lived.

 In 2014 we covered the fact that the $300,000 for the lighting was back and the total for the project was up to $3.4 million in July 2014.

 Now the project is finished. According to the May 12th, 2015 County Board meeting minutes the project was:
-Supposed to take 18 months... and actually took 48 months to complete
-Supposed to cost $2,497,735 ... and actually cost $3,603,517 ($1,105,782 over budget)

 This comes on the heels of the March Cost Overrun Workshop Reveals Cure is Worse Than the Disease. Referring to the County not only missing many of the worst cost overruns in the projects they oversee; but also coming up with the most ridiculous solutions to face the problem. Such as limiting public involvement.
Contact your county commissioners to demand better oversight:
fran.miron@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6211 
ted.bearth@co.washington.mn.us 651-738-2425 
gary.kriesel@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6213 
lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6215 
karla.bigham@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-6214




Related Articles:





Friday, May 15, 2015

Mayor Stephens Uses Misinformation to Protect the Gateway Corridor

On May 12th Woodbury Mayor Mary Giuliani Stephens posted this article in the Pioneer Press stating "a bill" in the house passed that  "would eliminate the funding necessary to build any of the new transit service being planned for the East Metro. We would not be able to build the Gold Line that would serve Woodbury." (also known as the Gateway Corridor)

Stephens article doesn't name the bill; however it certainly must reference Representative Linda Runbeck's bill HF899 which is a common sense bill that states: Transit projects like the Gateway Corridor/Gold Line can't be built " unless (1) a law is enacted that specifically identifies and authorizes the project, or (2) state funds are appropriated specifically for the project" 

This means:
1.) No longer can un-elected bodies like the Met Council lead the construction of these transit corridors until the elected legislature first reviews and approves the project.
2.) No longer can these transit corridors obtain state funds by creating ear marks on to the state omnibus bill. They will need to stand on their own merit for approval in the legislature if HF899 passes. 

In our article: 8 local Republican Legislators Explain their Position on Transit Runbeck clarifies the common sense nature of the bill:
"Obligating taxpayers to spend billions for a transit network that at best will serve 4% of commutes is grounds for mandating that the current Met Council/CTIB decision-making process on transit be required to get specific legislative approval before advancing any transit project.  That's what the bill will do." 

What is clear is Mayor Stephens is using scare tactics and mis-information to sway public opinion away from common sense legislation regarding transit. The bill would not prevent any corridor from being built. It would institute much needed integrity to the way transit corridors are built in Minnesota.





Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)