Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tells staff to oppose Curbside expansion of mixed municipal waste and organics; asks MPCA letter to highlight traffic, odor and enforcement concerns
Summary
Council reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Curbside's proposed expansion and directed staff to submit comments supporting yard waste, construction/demolition processing and single‑stream recycling but opposing outsourced mixed municipal solid waste and source‑separated organics at the Dayton site because of traffic, odor, fire‑suppression and enforcement concerns.
The council reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) submitted by Curbside for proposed expanded processing at its Dayton facility and provided direction to staff on a comment letter to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Current permit: Curbside is authorized to operate a yard‑waste transfer within the existing building (previously limited to about 42,000 cubic yards annually). The EAW seeks to permit substantially larger annual volumes and to add waste streams including outsourced mixed municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, source‑separated organics and single‑stream recycling.
Council direction: after discussion the council agreed on the following positions that staff should include in the city's EAW comments: support continued yard‑waste processing and single‑stream recycling and conditional support for construction and demolition materials but oppose acceptance/processing of outsourced mixed municipal solid waste at the Dayton location and oppose accepting source‑separated organics that could create odor/nuisance near neighbors. Council members cited concerns about a likely increase in truck traffic and long‑haul semis coming to and from the site, potential odors, the need for a building‑plumbed fire‑suppression system if the waste stream changes, and limitations on the city’s ability to enforce operational problems that fall under state licensing.
Specific requests for the letter: council asked staff to (1) remove or revise any EAW language asserting "no significant increase in traffic" because the city cannot verify that claim, (2) ask the MPCA for a more complete traffic and truck‑routing analysis, (3) require a timeline for installing a water‑based fire suppression system if the operation expands to demolition/organic streams, and (4) flag neighbor‑complaint risks and potential mitigation measures (hours, odor control, debris containment).
Representative quote: “We should not be saying there will be no significant increase in traffic because we don't know that,” a council member said while urging more cautious language.
Next steps: staff will draft a comment letter aligned with council direction within the EAW comment period and submit it to the MPCA.
