Laserfiche WebLink
If, however, the City Council is indicating that they have no <br />interest in simply preparing additional studies but are <br />interested in proceeding with a project, that would be another <br />matter entirely. <br /> <br />"How long before siting of site P and will it be in the best <br />interest of the City to retain airport in "as is" status, <br />until this is done with no further studies or expense?" <br /> <br />The site selection authority is now meeting and has scheduled <br />meetings through November. Thus, a site should be selected <br />by the end of the year if the County makes a selection. The <br />County could elect not to choose a site and Metropolitan <br />Council would then be responsible for site selection. This <br />would be done the first quarter of 1991 under the current <br />schedule. <br /> <br />It would be better to take no action at the current time than <br />to abandon the project if there is a possibility that it may <br />yet go forward. If there is no possibility that the project <br />would proceed, then the city should remove this concern from <br />its argument against the candidate landfill site. <br /> <br />Attached is the technical document from the landfill siting <br />EIS which clearly indicates that the airport/landfill issue <br />is significant. It is, in fact, one of the few issues that <br />cannot be addressed through mitigation, engineered around, <br />dismissed or ignored. <br /> <br />The best interest of the City vis a vis airport/landfill <br />issues would be to proceed with the airport project and have <br />the State be a partner with a vested interest. <br /> <br />Under an "as is" scenario, the age old argument that the <br />airport may not continue to exist and therefore would not be <br />a conflict is valid. <br /> <br />"If the master plan has been approved, why is there a need for <br />more study?" <br /> <br />At our last two meetings with Mn/DOT, they expressed an <br />interest in development of a crosswind runway if the <br />Mississippi bridge crossing was being planned. During the <br />Master Plan Study, this crossing was not contemplated and any <br />crosswind would have required the closure of County 56. This <br />idea was rejected since it is a major arterial. With a new <br />crossing and associated roadway, the possibility does present <br />itself that a portion of Co. 56 could be abandoned and allow <br />for a crosswind to be developed. This is the concept which <br />Mn/DOT asked the City to look at. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />