Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 27, 1993 Work SessionNOTICE OF OFFICIAL MF~.F. TING Notice is hereby given that an official meeting is to be held in the City of Columbia Heights as follow~ Meeting of: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Date of Meetinl~ MONDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1993 Time of Meeting:. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Location of Meeting:. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E. Purpose of Meeting:. WORK SESSION 1. Solid Waste. Tipping Fe.e. Adjustme.nt 2. Share.d Ride. Financing 3. Adjournment The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on tho basis of disability in the admission or acce.ss to, or treatment or employme.nt in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be. provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, Extension 209, to make arrangements. (TDD/782-2806 for deaf only) ~ DRAFT~- Post. ItTM brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I~ 5~//~_ , ~'~ Anoka County's Solid Waste Management Charges Report December 21, 1993 Introduction Since the enactment of the Waste Management Act, Anoka County has made a strong commitment to environmentally sound integrated solid waste management and to managing waste in accordance with the order of preference delineated in Minnesota Statutes § 115A.02. This commitment is based on the County's desire to protect its environment, to meet state, regional, and County solid waste management policies, and to minimize the exposure of businesses, municipalities, and citizens to long term 1/ability resulting from the landfilling of unprocessed waste. To fulfill its commitments to environmentally sound waste management, the County has developed an integrated system including: waste reduction and reuse, recycling, yard and food waste composting, resource recovery, and landfi!Iing. Undergirding the County's responsibility to manage solid waste in a manner consistent with State mandates is the County's authority to designate kvhere the waste must be delivered. Designation assures that waste is managed appropriately and that sufficient revenue is available to finance the County's programs and to pay the bonds issued to support them. As a result of a recent court ruling, counties no longer have the authority to prevent the flow of waste over state lines for disposal at landfills. Out-od-state landfills represent much lower cost than the integrated system established by tho county; and some haulers have begun hauling waste to Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. If other haulers are to remain competitive, they are likely to follow suit. The large scale loss of waste deliveries to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility ("Facility") will result in the inability of the County to meet its contractual guarantees to NSP for the delivery of processible waste and in the loss of revenue to support recycling, abatement, tempesting, processing, and household hazardous waste collections. On December 14, 1993, the Anoka County Board reduced the tipping fee at the Facility from $77 per ton to $68 per ton to address this significant environmental and financial problem. The Board established a tipping fee of $49 per ton for those haulers willing to enter into a contract with County. One of the consequen¢~ of reducing the tipping fee is that the County will not have sufficient revenue to cover the .cost of its solid waste management programs. The purpose of this report is to assist in developing and evaluating a solid waste management charge. Part I of the report provides background information describing Anoka County's commitment to solid waste management and summarizing the County's contractual obligation and ability to deliver waste to the Facility. Part II of the report describes waste management funding mechanisms, summarizing the tipping fees and proposing a solid waste management charge. This part also describes the allocation of program costs across residential and non- residential improved parcels and describes the rate structure for the residential and non- residential charges. Part III of the report summarizes the public involvement process. Finally, Part IV describes the recommendations to implement the waste management charge. Background In this background section, the County's commitment to Integrated Waste Management and its obligation to resource r~ovcry will bc addressed. Anoka County's Commitment to Integrated Waste Management Anoka County is dedicated to protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing an environmentally sound solid wa.sty management system, The 1992 Anoka County Solid Waste Master Plan sets forth a policy of integrated waste management to assure that waste is managed by appropriate technology and in accordance with the order of preference delineated in Minnesota statute. Appendix A shows tile quantities of mixed municipal solid waste managed by Anoka County in ~1992. Landfill abatement has been identified as a fundamental goal of Anoka County's integrated waste management program and in state ancI regional policy. To ensure landfill abatement goals are met, the County has developed programs and policies that support the following waste management preferences delineated in Minnesota Statutes § 115A.02: * Waste reduction and reuse; * Waste recycling; * Composting of yard waste and food waste; · Resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste tempesting or incineration; and · Land disposal. Anoka County implemented the following integrated waste management programs in accordance with these preferences. Reduction and Reuse Waste reduction and reuse programs established by Anoka County have focused on both the quantity and hazardous nature of the waste generated by citizens and businesses. A public information program has been implemented which includes direct mail, newsletters, school presentations, and participation in the regional public information program. A household hazardous waste program was implemented in 1992 and focuses on proper self-management of hazardous materials by the resident and the collection of materials that cannot be self- managed. Recycling Anoka County's recycling efforts have resulted in an increase in recycling from 39,002 tons in 1988 to 67,04;~ tons of mixed municipal solid waste in 1992. As part of its program, the County partially funds municipal recycling programs. Because of this most municipalities in Anoka County offer curbside recycling to its residents. In addition, 23 drop off sites are available for the collection of recyclable materials generated by residents and businesses. Information and other technical assistance is provided by the County to facilitate both commercial and residential recycling. ~ - Yard and Food Waste Composting The County provides two yard waste drop-off sites for the composting of yard waste. In addition, many haulers collect yard waste at the curb. In 1992, 22,408 tons of yard waste were managed. In addition, the County participates in a waste exchange program with Burger King and is working with Cargill on a pilot project in two schools to promote food waste composting. Resource Recovery Anoka County's resource recovery program meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § ',~73.848 which prohibits the landfill, lng of unprocessed metropolitan mixed municipal solid waste. After careful analysis of the waste management options, Anoka County elected to enter into an agreement with Northern States Power Company (NSP) to design, construct, own, and operate a refuse derived fuel (RDF) facility in Shcrbume County. The RDF produced is burned for energy recovery at the United Power Association (UPA) Elk River Station. Since the Facility began operation in August 1989, NSP has processed over 1,677,000 tons of mixed municipal solid waste. In addition, over $0,000 tons of ferrous metals have been separated at the Facility for recycling at the AMG Resources facility in Newport. Land Disposal The County reduction, recycling, and waste processing programs are intended to minimize the need for land disposal. The County intends to use land disposal only where appropriate, including the disposal of non-processibles, residues, and ash. The landfills used by the County are state-of-the-art landfills with a monitoring system, bottom liner, and leaehate collection system. Resource l~ecovery Obligations Under the terms of its 1987 design and construction and service agreements with the County, NSP has thc responsibility to own, design, construct and operate a 1500 ton per day RDF Facility in Elk River and to provide the RDF for combustion at UPA's Elk River Station. Anoka County issued approximately $70 million in revenue bonds for the construction, retrofitting, and installation of emission control devices for the Facility. In addition the County issued approximately $1.7 million in general obligation bonds to cover development costs. Anoka County contracted with NSP to reserve 500 tons per day of the 1500 tons per day capacity. However, the County is obligated to deliver :350 tons of mixed municipal solid per day to avoid, penalties. (Hennepin County, Sherburne County, and the Tri-County Solid Waste Management Commission also signed separate service agreements with NSP for the use of the 1500 ton per day Facility). Anoka County also has the obligation to pay NSP a processing fee, including its pro rata share of the bonds, regardless of the amount of waste delivered. 2 Because processing is more expensive than landfilling, the County~ implemented designation pursuant to Minn. ~tat. § 115A.80 et seq. Thc County's Designation Ordinance was approved by the Metropolitan Council on November 3.7, 3.988, and became effective on July 3.5, 1989. The designation authority ensured that waste is processed and the County can meet its obligation to deliver waste to the facility, In 1993, the Eighth Circuit for the United States Court of Appeals ruled that controlling the flow of waste across state lines pursuant to designation violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Following this ruling, Anoka County revised its Solid Waste Ordinance to limit the scope of designation to waste delivered within Minnesota. After the designation ruling, some haulers began hauling waste to landfills in Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois. These landfills provide a less expensive disposal option, even when transportation costs are included, than delivering waste to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. As a result haulers that comply with designation arc at a competitive disadvantage. To retain competitive prices for their customers, haulers have begun to dispose of waste at out-of-state landfills. This could result in a significant reduction in the quantity of waste delivered to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. Consequently, Anoka County has the following significant concerns. Landfilling of waste is not the preferred environmental strategy and landfilling increases Anoka County citizen's and businesses' exposure to superfund liability. In addition, the inability of Anoka County to meet its contractual obligations would have serious financial consequences and could result in default under the NSP service agreement. Finally, thc County will not receive the revenue necessary to pay the costs of its integrated waste management system. Solid Waste Management Funding Mechanisms To address the circumstances described above and to assure the delivery of waste to the Facility, the County reduced its tipping fee and is considering residential and non-residential solid waste management charges. This section of the report will address the tipping fee, waste management charges, and the rationale for the development of these charges. Tipping Fee Since August 1, 1991, Anoka County charged mixed municipal solid waste haulers a tipping fee of $77 per ton of waste delivered to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility. The fee was set at $77 per ton to cover the operating, processing, and capital costs at the Facility as well as a portion of the costs for thc County's solid waste integrated programs for recycling, yard waste, household hazardous waste, solid waste enforcement, and administration. Anoka County staff researched tipping fees and costs associated with disposing of waste at out-of-state landfills. The City of Minneapolis received proposals of $49.96 and $54.37 per ton for the hauling and disposal of mixed municipal waste at out-of-state landfills. Axe'ret identifying the costs of these and other competing landfill disposal options available to haulers, the County determined that offering a tipping fee of $49 per ton would provide an economically competitive disposal option for haulers to dispose of Anoka County waste at the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility, 3 On December 14, 1993, the Anoka County Board of Commissioners reduced the tipping fee to $68 per wn for haul~rs delivering waste to the Elk River Resource Recovery Facility and $49 per ton for haulers contracting with Anoka County for the deliver, tel waste generated in Anoka County and delivered to the Facility beginning January 3, 199~KTI-Iaulers entering into a contract by February 8, 1994, will receive the $49 rate retroactive to January 3, 1994. Haulers signing a contra~ after February 8, 1994, will qualify for the new tipping fee on the date the contract becomes effective. The new tipping fee of $49 per ton provides an economic incentive for haulers to contract with Anoka County for the disposal of solid waste generated in Anoka County, thereby providing the County with reasonable assurance that waste will be managed in accordance with the environmental preferences delineated in Minnesota S~atutes § 115A.02 and that the County can meet its environmental objectives and its contractual obligations to the Facility, The $68 per ton tipping fee was established, for haulers not contracting with the County, because it is the estimated average cost of processing a ton of waste at the .Facility in 1994. Recommended Solid Waste Management Charges The County developed a structure for a solid waste management charge because the $49 per ton tipping .fee is below the actual cost of processing a ton of waste at the Facility. The solid waste management charge should be set at a level that will raise the funds needed to continue the implementation of the County's integrated waste management programi. These charges will partially fund Anoka County's integrated solid waste management programs including waste reduction, recycling, yard waste composting, tree waste, household hazardous waste, resource recovery, administration, and enforcement programs. The proposed billing mechanism is the property tax statement. The solid waste management charges will be due, payable, and collected in thc same manner as property taxes. Late payments will be subject to the same penalties and interest as overdue real property taxes. The recommended solid waste management charges were developed taking into consideration administrative costs of implementing the system, the minimization of financial risk to county taxpayers, and equity of the rate structure. The collection method minimizes administrative costs because it is an existing revenue collection system. The financial risk to citizens is also minimized because there is an effective collection mechanism in place and the amount of revenue generated is more predictable. Finally, equity is served because all people in Anoka County benefit from the integrated waste management system and will pay for these services. The allocation between the residential and the non-residential sectors is based on the benefit received by each sector. Tax exempt properties will also be required to pay the solid waste management charge because they also benefit from the services, 4 Funds Required The total 1994 integrated waste management program costs are $11,849,145. Of this, $4,069,470 will be financed through the w~te management charge. The remainder will be funded by tipping fees, SCORE funds, grants, surcharges, and a minimal amount of property tax. The charts below depict the changes in the source of funds resulting from tho implementation of the changes. Anoka County Integrated Solid Waste Management Sources of Funds (with SW Management Charge) 6% 3% [] $4% RDF TIp Fee SW Management Charge [] SCOEE Funds [] LI~DG i~ CI Grc~nt$ [] Surcharge Funds [] Tax Levy Sources of Funds (prior to tip fee reduction) 6% 1% 3% 90% [] EDF Tip Fee [] ~W Management Charge [] SCOI~E Funds [] LEDG & Cl Grants [] Surcharge Funds [] Tax Levy Integrated Waste Management Budget Summary The following table describes the integrated waste management program budget, including deficit~ needing funding through thc waste raanagcmCnt charge, Operation of Re~uwe R~ove~ Facility $6,g17,~0 $9,0~,~0 ($2,527,000) Tip Fee: $49 per ton 133,~ runs/year RRF Facility R~e~e 0 5~,0~ (500,~) R~ycling 37,652 96,~00 .... (58,~8) Municipal ~atemeat ~l°eations 747,~0 747,~0 0 Yar~ree W~te 0 164,910 HoU~hold H~dous Waste 347,022 480,056 (133,034) Inte~ated Waste M~t & Teeh ~aist 151,027 ~35,135 (104,108) Administration & Enfo~ement ..... 0 ~75,000 (175,000) Bad Debt 0 203,472 (203,472) ~ntingency 0 203,472 (203,~72) Total $7,779,701 $1~,8~9,145 ($~,069,~) A 5% allocation for bad debt was included. This percentage was based on historical property tax delinquencies and discussions with Anoka County property tax staff. A 5% contingency was included so the financial stability of the County's integrated waste management program could be maintained should the projected quantity of mixed municipal solid waste not be realized or if revenues was overestimated. Cost Allocation This report allocates the costs associated with services provided to the residential and non- residential sectors and proposes a solid waste management charge for each sector that reflects the availability of the services provided by the County to that sector. Those expenses that are specifically associated with the residential programs will be funded entirely by the residential solid waste management charge. Similarly, those programs benefitting the non-residential sector will be funded by the non-residential waste management charge. Programs which benefit both sectors, such as resource recovery and r~ycling, were allocatcd based on both the availability of service and the actual use of that service. The allocation of RDF program costs to the residential sector was based on an average of 1.1 tons per year per household of mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the Facility multiplied by the number of weighted residential units in the County. This residential waste total was divided by the total tons of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the Facility in 1992 to arrive at the 73.15 % allocation factor for the RDF program costsfor the residential sector. The balance of the RDF program costs (26.85%) were allocated to the non-residential sector. 6 Other County programs were allocated between residential and non-residential on the basis of projected expenditures as described in APt~ndix B. County administration and other related costs were split proportionally thc same as the programs in aggregate. The result of this allocation system is such that the residential charges should cover $3,070,395 of services which arc available to the residential sector. The non-residential charge should cover $999,049 for services which are available for the non-residential sector. Residential Waste Management Charge The following three categories were developed within the residential sector: Category I Residences include each dwelling unit within single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, duplexes, double bungalows, triplexes, quad homes, seasonal recreation property, and other residential property with one to three dwelling units. Category II Residences are mobile home pads on property that is classified by the County Assessor as a mobile home park. Category III Residences include each dwelling unit within apartments with four or more dwelling units. The average number of people living in each dwelling unit, as reported in the 1990 Census for Anoka County, was the determining factor in the allocation of costs among residential categories. Category I Residences were established for single family dwellings and like residences. Category II Residences have, on average, 20% fewer people per dwelling than Category I Residences. (Category III Residences have, on average, 35°~ fewer people per dwelling than Category I Residences. Based on historical information and waste trends, it is reasonable to believe that household waste generation is related to the number of people per household. The total solid waste management charge needed for the residential sector was allocated in this proportion as illustrated in the chart below. Category I Residences Category II Residences Category III Residences 72,908 4,692 3.13 2,52 12,946 2.18 /':':~ '*:" .':'!" ~?'.' :::S'".~'¢'''' $36.09 $28.87 $23.46 Sources: 1.990 United States Census for Anoka County and the Anoka County Property Records and Taxation Divi~ioa. 7 Non-Residential Waste Management Charge Four categories were developed within the non-residential sector on the basis of the market value of real property, as determined by the Anoka County Assessor, excluding the estimated market value of the land. The non-residential sector includes property tax categories classified by the County Assessor as commercial, industrial, nursing home, service station, utility, railroad, or tax exempt property which contains improvements other than a dwelling unit. The total costs charged to the non-residential properties are allocated to each category in the same proportion as the aggregate assessed value of the category is to the aggregate assessed valtte of all the non-residential pwperties. The fee per parcel was determined by dividing the total charge for the category by the number of parcels within that category. The values of the non-residential properties were grouped into four categories as shown in the chart below. Non-Residential Waste management Charge Category I $25,000 - $200,000 Category II $200,001 - $500,000 Category III $500,001 - $~I,000,000 Category IV $1,000,001 and over 1,619 587 197 294 $79.97 $259.72 $584.21 $2,047.71 In the absence of specific waste generation data, such as type, quality, and quantity, for each waste generator or other quantitative measure of benefit, the County developed the four categories based on the estimated value of the improvements on the land and charged a fiat fee within each category. This system recognizes that the benefits of the availability of waste management services and the protection against long term superfund liability are not directly proportional to the market value of the property, but generally increase as the value of improvements increases. ,~ 'This system includes improved tax exempt property because such property also benefits' from the availability of services and appropriate management of waste. It does not include parcels with improvements valued at less than $25,000 because a review of the tax records indicates that some parcels tend to be unoccupied, non-waste generating properties, such as sewage lift stations and water pump stations. Appendix B provides additional detail on the calculation of the charges. 8 Public Involvement' Anoka County staff have met with groups of Auoka County mixed municipal solid waste haulers and municipalities to discuss alternative payment options for solid waste management services provided by the County many times over the past eight months. There have also been many additional meetings and telephone conversations with haulers to disseminate information and discuss options. A public hearing on the proposed tipping fee reduction and solid waste management charges was held on December 14, 1999, at 10 a,m. in the Board Room of the Anoka County C-overnment Center to receive written and oral testimony fwm interested parties. The hearing was continued to December 21, 1993, at 10 a.m, to hear additional comments. Recommendations It is recommended that the Anoka Board of Commissioners: 1. Accept and approve the Anoka County Solid Waste Management Charges Report, dated December 21, 1993; and 2. Adopt Resolution 93-180 establishing a Solid Waste Management Service Area to include the entire County of Anoka; and 3. Adopt Anoka County Ordinance 94-1, Solid Waste Management Charge Ordinance, at a meeting subsequent to the close of the public hearing; and Direct staff to negotiate waste delivery contracts with haulers licensed in Anoka County, reflecting the tipping fee adopted by the County Board in Resolution 93-167; and Direct staff to prepare a work plan and cost estimates for a study examining the County's options for assuring the appropriate management of waste generated in Anoka County and the options for funding Anoka County integrated solid waste management programs in the future. 9 Appendix A 1992 Anoka County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste The residential and non-residential quantities of mixed municipal solid waste managed flu'ough the rccycling, yard wa~t~, trce waste and household hazardou~ waztc programs wcrc evaluated. It should be noted that waste from apartment buildings was included in thc residential sector. The following chart provides a summary of thc mixed municipal solid waste managed in 1992. 1992 Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Tons Managed Anoka MSW Delivered to 96,998 35,604 132,602 NSP-Elk River Facility .... Residential Recycling 16,873 0 16,873 Non-residential Recycling 0 50,170 50,170 Yard Waste 19,878 2,530 22,408 Tree Waste 2,660 2,455 5,115 Household Hazardous Waste 37 0 37 Total 136,446 90,759 227,205 Source: Anoka County Integrated Waste Management Staff Report. The quantity of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste that will be delivered to the NSP- Elk River Facility in 1994 is projected to be 133,000 tons, This projection is higher than projected in the 1992 Anoka County Solid Waste Master Plan (RefMP p. 52), however, 1992 and projected 1993 data indicate that the Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste deliveries to the NSP-Elk River Facility will remain fiat in 1994. Anoka County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Delivered to the NSP-EIk River RDF Facility · 1990 - 1994 1990 1991 1992 Pr~eeted 1993 Pr~ected 1994 133,340 129,567 132,602 134,000 133,000 10 Sources of Data The quantity of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste that will be delivered to the Elk River Resource Re, very Facility in 1994 is pwj~cted to b~ 1~,000 tons. This projection is higher than projected in ~e 1992 Anoka County Solid Waste Master Plan; however, 1992 and projected 1993 data indicate that the Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste deliveries to the Elk River Facility will not exceed 133,(~00 tons in 1994, Anoka County MSW Delivered to Elk River Resource Recovery Facility Approximately 73.15 percent of the Anoka County waste delivered to the Facility is from the residential sector, and approximately 26.85 percent o1~ the waste delivered is from the non- residential sector. This determination is based on an average of 1.1 ions per year per household of mixed municipal solid waste delivered ~ the Facility multiplied by the number of residential units in the County, This residential waste total was divided by the 132,602 tons of Anoka County mixed municipal solid waste delivered to the facility in 1992 to arrive at the 73.15 percent allocation factor for the residential sector. Residential Recycling Each of the 21 municipalities in Anoka Coune/is required to report the quantities of residential recyclables collected on a semi-annual basis. In 1992, 16,873 tons were reported. Non.residential Recycling Anoka County surveyed over 5,000 businesses to determine the quantity of non-residential recycling. Over 500 businesses with 20 or moro employees were surveyed by telephone, and other surveys were conducted through the mail. Office of Waste Management volume conversion rates were used where necessary. Yard Waste Yard waste collected at the County yard waste sites and yard waste quantities reported by the municipalities comprise the 22,408 tons reported in 1992. The residential sector delivered 19,878 of these tons, and the non-residential sector generated 2,530 tons. A conversion factor of 350 pounds per cubic yard was used, Tree Waste The quantity of tree waste collected in 1992 totals $,115 tons. Of this, 2,660 tons were generated by the residential sector and 2,2"-~5 tons were delivered by the non-residential sector. A conversion factor of 375 pound~ p~r cubic yard was used. Household Hazardous Waste The amount of household hazardous waste collected at the event collections was recorded. Based on a 10 pound per gallon conversion factor, 37 tons of household hazardous wastes were collected in 1992 11 APPENDIX B 12 COUNTY OF ANOKA GOVERNMENT CENTER 2100 3rd Avenue · Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2489 (612) 323-5680 December 1, 1993 JIM A. KORDIAK The Honorable Donald J. Murzyn, Jr. Mayor, City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 Dear Mayor Murzyn: This letter is in response to your memo of November 23, 1993, requesting additional funding to cover the anticipated 1993 cost overruns associated with the Shared Ride transportation program as well as funding for the same program in 1994, At this time, I am prepared to recommend to my fellow County Commissioners that we assist the City of Columbia Heights with the 1993 overruns according to the formula outlined to your City Manager, Patrick Hentges, in a memo dated August 31,1993. In this formula, Anoka County would pay two-thirds of the cost overrun amount less the 1992 carryover amount ($6,691) not to exceed $13,538 and would be payable at the conclusion of the 1993 accounting year upon submittal of an expense schedule from the City of Columbia Heights. ! would also recommend that Anoka County provide local dollars to the Shared Ride program for 1994 according to the formula suggested by Mr. Hentges at the City Council work session held on August 14, 1993. This formula would allocate administrative dollars on a per capita basis and is also outlined in detail in the memo referenced above. Since this funding is based on actual administrative dollars apent by Anoka County, it would be payable after the 1994 budget year is closed. The 1994 administrative budget would allow for a maximum payout of $7,230. if you have any questions or need further Information, please contact me or Margo ! Amau, Supervisor of Management Operations, at 754-3520. She will be. preparing the resolutions outlining the reimbursement formula for presentation to the County Board. Sincerely, dim l~rdi~k Anoka Cour~ ~ommissloner Jl~si CC: Anoka County Commissioners Margo LaBau, Supervisor of Management Operations Tim Kimhoff, Transportation Specialist FAX: 323-5682 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer TDD[TTY: 323-5289