Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />prevented by the landfill siting process required by state law. The <br />law establishes development limitations to maintain the availability <br />of the potential new landfill sites selected between 1983 and 1985. <br />Site P, one of three potential sites for a new landfill in Anoka Co., <br />has been selected in accordance with this statute and is also within <br />the area affected by the city zoning ordiannce. The law provides that <br />with approval of the Metropolitan Council, a metropolitan county may <br />acquire a (candidate landfill) site and buffer area for a solid waste <br />disposal facility anywhere within the county without complying with <br />local ordinances (MS 473.806, Sub. 4). The EIAR does not address this <br />particular statutory language but instead identifies <br />federal/state/regional policies and regulations regarding the <br />establishment of landfills near airports. Site P is depicted in <br />figure 2-7. It is clear from Ramsey's airport planning that <br />improvement of Gateway is contingent upon federal funding. The <br />development costs are considered "simply too costly to achieve as a <br />state/local project or as a totally local funded project." FAA order <br />5200.5 indicates that landfills within 5,000 feet of a runway used <br />only by piston aircraft are an incompatible Use. According to the <br />local FAA office, agency participation in costs related to development <br />of Gateway will not be possible until the FAA is assumed that all <br />landfill operations within 5,000 feet of the airport have ceased. <br />Consequently, it is extremely improbable that the airport improvement <br />plan will be considered for federal funding until the closure of the <br />landfill is assured. There is no committment from the landfill to <br />close by a specific future date. The Metropolitan Council report <br />issued in conjuction with its Certificate Of Need approval regarding <br />the proposed landfill expansion indicates the anticiapted timeframes. <br />At current use rates, permitted capacity was expected to be reached in <br />late 1987, and the proposed capacity reached by early 1990. The <br />document points out that the landfill could restrict disposal volumes <br />and thereby extend its period of operation. Delay of airport <br />improvements appears unavoidable, until closure of the existing <br />Landfill is decided, also, site P development limitation is in place <br />until November 1989. Until a decision on the need for site P is made, <br />airport development will be subject to uncertainty over the landfill <br />choice Anoka County is required to make. <br />The environmental impact statement process for the three potential <br />landfill sites, including site P, is expected to conclude by May <br />1989. Site selection and release of development limitations should be <br />completed in November 1989. <br />3. (COST EFFECTIVENESS) was raised as an issue because of the substantial <br />development costs (approximately 50%) attributable to property <br />acquisition, relocation of people, roads and utilities. This would be <br />in addition to no crosswind runway capability or expansion potential. <br />The EIAR examined the previous sites and runway alternatives and found <br />that they were no longer available. Cost -benefit ratios based upon a <br />single runway facility were prepared and indicate a positive economic <br />return over the 20 year period. <br />-3- <br />8-7 <br />